21–30 of 326 posts
The visual difference between a ! and an l is not that great, send_email if !user.suspended? or send_email if luser.suspended? The latter could easily be an aggressive dev sending abusive emails to users they dislike enough to call lusers, at first glance at least ...
send_email if not user_suspended?I don't have a problem with double negation but I hate ruby for this kind of design - pointless aliases for everything. It's the exact opposite of pythons "There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it" - they intentionally create solutions that have zero practical benefit - it's just fuels arguments based on preferences and introduces mental overhead due to inconsistency.
To be fair, Ruby inherited "unless" from Perl. And Perl literally has the opposite design principle, TIMTOWTDI or "there is more than one way to do it". I'm not arguing here -- I prefer the "one obvious way" principle. But you can design a beautiful programming language without regard for the long-term learnings of software engineering. I always liked Perl's "unless", and I always made sure to not abuse it with doubl…
The visual difference between a ! and an l is not that great, send_email if !user.suspended? or send_email if luser.suspended? The latter could easily be an aggressive dev sending abusive emails to users they dislike enough to call lusers, at first glance at least ...
Perhaps a Python style spelt-out `not` for boolean negation would have been a better solution for this than `unless` in deep retrospect? send_email if not user_suspended?
I don't have a problem with double negation but I hate ruby for this kind of design - pointless aliases for everything. It's the exact opposite of pythons "There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it" - they intentionally create solutions that have zero practical benefit - it's just fuels arguments based on preferences and introduces mental overhead due to inconsistency.
To be fair, Ruby inherited "unless" from Perl. And Perl literally has the opposite design principle, TIMTOWTDI or "there is more than one way to do it". I'm not arguing here -- I prefer the "one obvious way" principle. But you can design a beautiful programming language without regard for the long-term learnings of software engineering. I always liked Perl's "unless", and I always made sure to not abuse it with doubl…
- Matz, c.a 2003
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Ruby inherited "unless" from Perl. And Perl literally has the opposite design principle, TIMTOWTDI or "there is more than one way to do it". I'm not arguing here -- I prefer the "one obvious way" principle. But you can design a beautiful programming language without regard for the long-term learnings of software engineering. I always liked Perl's "unless", and I always made sure to not abuse it with doubl…
Ruby is basically Perl++
The worst thing about `unless` and double negatives, is having been raised in a culture with different double negative rules than English. In Italian a double negative is still negative. I know boolean logic pretty well, but `unless !something` still trips me up to this day.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
I don't have a problem with double negation but I hate ruby for this kind of design - pointless aliases for everything. It's the exact opposite of pythons "There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it" - they intentionally create solutions that have zero practical benefit - it's just fuels arguments based on preferences and introduces mental overhead due to inconsistency.
To be fair, Ruby inherited "unless" from Perl. And Perl literally has the opposite design principle, TIMTOWTDI or "there is more than one way to do it". I'm not arguing here -- I prefer the "one obvious way" principle. But you can design a beautiful programming language without regard for the long-term learnings of software engineering. I always liked Perl's "unless", and I always made sure to not abuse it with doubl…
The visual difference between a ! and an l is not that great, send_email if !user.suspended? or send_email if luser.suspended? The latter could easily be an aggressive dev sending abusive emails to users they dislike enough to call lusers, at first glance at least ...