syntactic sugar:

@codesections If you think about it, all high level languages are just syntactic sugar over assembly

@codesections when helps to avoid verbosity or boilerplate it's definitely likeable. But there's from sugars to sugars, some are good having controll of them and no excess.

Case in point IMO:
✅ Collections vs loops
a.each Vs for(i=0; I < a.size; i++)
✅ Abbreviation of methods
a + b Vs a.concat(b)
❌ Use mnemonics
{ |e, x| } vs { - }
❌ Symbols vs methods'foo') vs e['foo']

So, when your overall code looks cryptic maybe an unpleasant experience instead of help

@codesections Depends. I like sugars that are just over a tiny thing that would be annoying to type, things like arr[] are fine, builtin list comprehensions are not worth anyone's time.

I'd say operators are syntactic sugar only in languages where you can't make new ones, I don't really like how operators are done and overloaded in languages that do that, but that's not to say I dislike it much.

Because overall I prefer a consistent representation of things I'm not going for delicious.

@codesections where "do that" is having only a closed set of builtin operators.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.