f-script

Andreas Raab Andreas.Raab at gmx.de
Tue Nov 20 13:48:58 UTC 2001


Greg,

> Magic (i.e. special non-alphanumeric) characters as "operators" have
> their advantages.
>
> In Smalltalk syntax one of the problems with symbols like you suggest,
> or any new keywords that look like words, is that they're much more
> easily confused with message selectors or variable names, etc.

In this particular case the "operators" _are_ messages, e.g., reduction is
represented by "\", a join by "><" and a scan by "\\". There ain't no
confusion just plain unreadability as far as I am concerned ;-)

> One of the advantages of APL, when done right, is that the notation
> actually looks meaningful to an experienced person (though not to me,
> mind you! :-).

My primary problem with any such approach is that it requires you to become
an experienced person first. We learn a lot by just looking at other
people's code. If that code is hard to read in the first place (in
particular considering that important aspects in F-script are represented in
those arbitrary operators) it is questionable how we can easily get
proficient in the language.

> I suspect anyone who works long enough with F-script will
> learn the new operators much as an experienced C programmer
> learns the unique idioms of C, or indeed even as a Smalltalk
> programmer learns its idioms.

Yes, I agree. Anyone "who works long enough" will do - but how many people
do you loose due to having those hard to read idiosyncratic constructs?!
It's like saying anyone who is using command lines long enough will learn
the new operators and constructs - true but still the vast majority of
people prefers graphical user interfaces.

Cheers,
  - Andreas





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list