Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Streem – a new programming language from Matz

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 199 posts

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

vessenes wrote: post #3

Why do most implementations of FizzBuzz special case % 15? I haven't ever really understood this. Maybe it's just my math-y background, but it always seemed to me you should just check mod 3 and mod 5 without an else between them, concatenating Fizz and Buzz. Can anyone else comment on this? Most canonical FizzBuzz programs special case 15, and I don't get it.

Well, its more direct in that, while it increases the number of branches, it minimizes the number of statements executed on any branch. It's also the solution that maps most directly to the problem statement, and, absent a strong technical reason to do otherwise, a direct mapping from requirements to code is a good thing.

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#42

Post by c3RlcGhlbnI_ »

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 you would have to put in filters to resplit input into lines and that is very messy for something that you will need/want to do very often.

For example if you wanted to parse by character it would be wonderful to be able to do the following:

  STDIN | /./{|c|
    # stuff
  }
Even better would be if you took it a step further and offered something like regex pattern matching for the block input. e.g.

  STDIN | /\w+/{|word|
    /house/ {
      # when word is house
    }
    /car/ {
      # when word is car
    }
    {
      # default case
    }
  }

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#43

Post by Doji »

masukomi wrote: post #27
vessenes wrote: post #3

Why do most implementations of FizzBuzz special case % 15? I haven't ever really understood this. Maybe it's just my math-y background, but it always seemed to me you should just check mod 3 and mod 5 without an else between them, concatenating Fizz and Buzz. Can anyone else comment on this? Most canonical FizzBuzz programs special case 15, and I don't get it.

just because 15 HAPPENS to be a concatenation of the output of 3 and the output of 5 today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. If I said "say Fizz for multiples of 3, Buzz for multiples of 5, and 'this is a silly coding problem' for multiples of 3 and 5 then you'd have to rewrite your code. Some of us know that clients ALWAYS change their minds, specs are rarely equivalent to the end result, and code against future cha…

For any implementation you can manufacture an example which will require a person to re-structure their code.

Additionally, using %15 is not DRY. If the spec changes from saying "Fizz" on multiples of 3 to saying "Fizz" on multiples of 4, then you will have to also update 15->20. If you forget to do this, you have a bug.

The correct implementation is dependent on the problem's context, and such context is not available with the FizzBuzz problem.

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#44

Post by tenken »

k__ wrote: post #23
retr0h wrote: post #16

Not a fan of the closing braces.

Didn't Matz mention that he wasn't either, when explaining Rubys syntax? I'm a fan of indentation based blocks, so this seems like a step back for me :\

yea, but besides python and maybe F# who uses any of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-side_rule#Off-side_rule_lan...

And I dont think declarative languages like SASS and Yaml count as they're not "programming languages". So I think that list is actually shorter. I don't see any of these languages outside of the 2 I mentioned as really "mainstream".

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#45

Post by kaonashi »

PhearTheCeal wrote: post #37
[deleted] wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

noice, here's my version print("\n".join([("FIZZ"*(i%3==0)+"BUZZ"*(i%5==0)) or str(i) for i in range(1,101)]))

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

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

angersock wrote: post #33
skrebbel wrote: post #8

Reminds me a lot of Elixir's |> operator, which does the exact same thing. Nice! Curious how it'll turn out to compare with Elixir on other areas.

Could be cool, but Elxiir has the EVM under it, and that is some quality engineering. Ruby is good but kind of clownshoes.

Streem is inspired by Erlang and Ruby, and currently the only code is initial code for the parser and lexer, and there's no information about what the runtime will be like.

Re: Streem – a new programming language from Matz

#48

Post by Legion »

masukomi wrote: post #27
vessenes wrote: post #3

Why do most implementations of FizzBuzz special case % 15? I haven't ever really understood this. Maybe it's just my math-y background, but it always seemed to me you should just check mod 3 and mod 5 without an else between them, concatenating Fizz and Buzz. Can anyone else comment on this? Most canonical FizzBuzz programs special case 15, and I don't get it.

just because 15 HAPPENS to be a concatenation of the output of 3 and the output of 5 today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. If I said "say Fizz for multiples of 3, Buzz for multiples of 5, and 'this is a silly coding problem' for multiples of 3 and 5 then you'd have to rewrite your code. Some of us know that clients ALWAYS change their minds, specs are rarely equivalent to the end result, and code against future cha…

This is absolutely true for real-world coding. However, for the purposes of an exercise, I think the fact that 15 was chosen was not an accident, but is part of the exercise. Does the coder recognize the relationship between the multiples, and recognize the ability to optimize by removing an extraneous comparison?

It's kind of a trivial test for that sort of recognition, but anything as small as FizzBuzz is going to be rather trivial.

Post reply on HN