Live data from Hacker News

Scala – The Simple Parts

slideshare.net

51–52 of 52 posts

Re: Scala – The Simple Parts

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by word, but + vs. add() definitely have different levels of cognitive burden: Compare: (a + (b + c)) + d vs. add(add(a, add(b, c)), d) One is arithmetic, the other is polish notation.

Even polish notation benefits from +, IMO. + + a + b c d We can also (with mainstream OO syntax) make add infix and it's still ugly: a.add(b.add(c)).add(d)

> + + a + b c d

Yuck, really? I find that much less readable than "add(add(a, add(b, c)), d)"

Re: Scala – The Simple Parts

#52
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even polish notation benefits from +, IMO. + + a + b c d We can also (with mainstream OO syntax) make add infix and it's still ugly: a.add(b.add(c)).add(d)

> + + a + b c d Yuck, really? I find that much less readable than "add(add(a, add(b, c)), d)"

shrug I've probably done more rpn. A huge component of "readable" is "how similar is it to stuff I am used to reading".

I do have to read it backward and build the stack, but that's basically intuitive at this point.

Post reply on HN