Streem – a new programming language from Matz

Post by im2w1l » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #74

pcmonk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not any shorter. The extra check as to whether or not to print the line break cancels out the mod 15 check. In my opinion, it's cleaner to have three conditionals of the same type than two checking mods and a third checking the OR of the first two. Of course, it can be actually shorter with a goto.

string output = numb.toString(); if(numb % 3 == 0) ouput = "Fizz"; if(numb % 5 == 0) output.Append("Buzz"); write output; It is possible to use two checks to cover all three fizzbuzz components.

Post by nostrademons » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 7:48 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #73

kaonashi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope never to find a bomb like that in the code I'm maintaining.

Really? I find that one line far more pleasant than the Python example above it, with variables being assigned, etc. Both are quite clear in their intention, I think, assuming you recognize "join". I don't even recognize the language of the one-liner, but it makes perfect sense to me as a reader. It looks like a Perlish solution, but the string method is strange, I think. Maybe Perl 6 or Ruby?

Post by gaius » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 7:48 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #78

Argorak wrote: post #72

If you ever meet Matz, talk to him about programming languages. While he gets some flak for all the problems of his original hobby project (Ruby), he obviously loves programming languages and gives things more thought then people give him credit for. I had the chance to talk to him while I was still a student and full of ideas how the language could be made "better" and he shot them all down. For good reasons, as I k…

Does he really get a "lot of flak" for Ruby? While I know not everyone loves Ruby, it seems crazy to me that people would denigrate Matz on a personal level...to me (admittedly, a novice in designing languages), Ruby always seemed well-thought out...that is, the trade-offs do not seem out of line given the philosophical benefits, and not everyone can make claim to turning a personal project into a worldwide language.…

Post by louthy » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 7:52 PM UTC

muraiki wrote: post #67

mjt0229 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of Elixir, but I always assumed that the |> originated in F#. Ocaml has it pretty much standard, too, although you can define it in one line in Ocaml: let (|>) x f = f x

In Elixir, |> does not flip arguments. It lets you chain together multiple functions by inserting the result of the previous function as the first argument of the following function. Here's an example from http://www.theerlangelist.com/2014/01/why-elixir.html The following code computes the sum of squares of all positive numbers of a list: list |> Enum.filter(&(&1 > 0)) |> Enum.map(&(&1 * &1)) |> Enum.reduce(0, &(&1…

    let (|>) x f = f x

    x |> f  is equal to  f x

    list |> List.filter (fun x -> x > 0)
         |> List.map (fun x -> x * x)
         |> List.reduce (fun s x -> s + x)

Post by mamcx » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

c3RlcGhlbnI_ wrote: post #42

I am glad that someone is working on a new stream processing language, it is a very interesting paradigm. However I hope that they provide some very robust tools for controlling input splitting. As I have spent too much time fighting with awk and wishing it was more flexible(it is frustrating always having exactly two levels of splitting with only matchers on the first and only inverse splitting on the second). As is…