On 28 May 2009, at 19:55, Juan Zanos wrote:
> Terseness is a perfectly reasonable goal.  It's a corollary to  
> Occam's Razer.
> No?   If you're going to sacrifice conciseness you should have a  
> good reason
> for doing so.

Occam's law applies to theory formation, not to literate exposition.  
When writing code I'd rather err on the side of verbosity if that  
expresses my model well to those who lack my implicit knowledge, than  
terse and incomprehensible to anyone except myself.

>>
>> There is value in redundancy, and the trick is to find the right  
>> balance, not to eliminate it completely.
>
> Exactly.  So there should be a choice.  Right?

There is. It's called Python, and as its proponents frequently inform  
me it's every bit as powerful as Ruby.

>> Also, having more or less free reign on white space means I can  
>> express non-computational information more easily by using unusual  
>> white space to offset chunks of code or parameters to tell the  
>> reader, "Look, this is important" at a glance.
>>
>> Programming is a form of technical writing; judicious use of white  
>> space is a critical means of communicating with the reader.
>>
>>
>>    Some times I really do
>>    want to do this.
>>
>>    This is a powerful option.
>>
> It's possible to do this too.  Is it not?

And how do you embody syntactic rules for coping with such custom  
indenting when the whole point is that they're both exceptional and  
aesthetic in nature?


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason