Programming Languages

1367 readers

11 users here now

Hello!

This is the current Lemmy equivalent of https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/.

The content and rules are the same here as they are over there. Taken directly from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages overview:

This community is dedicated to the theory, design and implementation of programming languages.

Be nice to each other. Flame wars and rants are not welcomed. Please also put some effort into your post.

This isn't the right place to ask questions such as "What language should I use for X", "what language should I learn", and "what's your favorite language". Such questions should be posted in /c/learn_programming or /c/programming.

This is the right place for posts like the following:

"Check out this new language I've been working on!"
"Here's a blog post on how I implemented static type checking into this compiler"
"I want to write a compiler, where do I start?"
"How does the Java compiler work? How does it handle forward declarations/imports/targeting multiple platforms/?"
"How should I test my compiler? How are other compilers and interpreters like gcc, Java, and python tested?"
"What are the pros/cons of ?"
"Compare and contrast vs. "
"Confused about the semantics of this language"
"Proceedings from PLDI / OOPSLA / ICFP / "

See /r/ProgrammingLanguages for specific examples

Related online communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Stop Using <> for Generics (soc.me)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Some functions also don’t have any parentheses, like field access or infix operators.

You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.

I'm kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?

We could follow this line of thinking further ...

No we don't. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion ... then you have no point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.

What?

I’m kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?

We are ultimately arguing about subjective preferences. I favor of certain syntactic sugar because I believe it improves readability while you seem to be arguing for strict consistency above all else.
So by what metric are we measuring our points?

No we don’t. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion … then you have no point.

I admit, that was hyperbolic, but I don't see what syntax for data manipulation other than functions would be left in your ideal language.