Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

Most technologists don't seem to believe that design applies to programming languages at all. Programming languages are tools and tools are typically designed for efficiency, which is measurable - but you'll still hear things like 'syntax is personal'.

- It's worth optimizing for more people than fewer.

- There are a thousand times as many future programmers than there are existing ones.

- One can measure how easy it is for a clean-room human to read and create software in different languages and build something for them.

View on HN

I'd be happy to just have less variation in the syntax corresponding to established semantics; if you're designing a new language, please don't make some 'nifty' new way of typing out dictionaries. All this does is force me to hunker down with several beginning chapters of your programming language book instead of just skipping to the relevant differences from languages I already know.

If there's a good reason for the difference, by all means, go for it. But if there isn't, please reconsider.

Doesn't the author somewhat argue the opposite? If form follows function, then surely a "new" way of doing dictionaries should have a new syntax?

I'll be more specific: if it's the same construct, please make it look familiar. If it's novel, then surely, yes, appearing novel will help me.

I like your word choice: "help". Not just not hurt; it will help. Different things should look different.

Strongly disagree.

So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax. Or what about just making different use of the limited number of symbols on the keyboard to make the use more consistent?

Id rather have a more consistent language or one that introduced new concepts than one familiar in syntax just for the sake of being familiar.

Sure, I understand. But it's not just a case of new languages coming up and reusing concepts from the set of all currently-available syntaxes; they in fact invent wholly new ones.

It's reminiscent of this: https://xkcd.com/927/

Edit: further to your point, I agree that my gripes are merely about an up-front cost, whereas consistency can be helpful throughout your use of a language.

Edit again: I essentially seek consistency within and among languages. I don't mean to state one should come at the cost of the other at all times.

>So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax.

Yes, but what about the benefits from the regularity and uniformity?

> All this does is force me

If you're a programmer now, you're a secondary audience to the masses of people who will program in the future. If the language is going to have the most impact, what they prefer supersedes what you (and I) prefer.

> If there's a good reason for the difference, by all means, go for it.

Of course and agreed. Nothing should exist without reason. Antoine de Saint Exupery etc.

This seems to be blurring a use of "design". Not all design is chrome on top of things. Some literally leads to better use. Some design is required for safe use.

I think it is oversold, but the book "Design of Everyday Things"[1] goes over this for many common items. There is a long section on doors with many interesting points to consider.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Revised-Expand...

> This seems to be blurring a use of "design". Not all design is chrome on top of things.

You're thinking of syntax as chrome. It is more than that.

Apologies, that is exactly what I was trying to say. Specifically, I was arguing against "Most technologists don't seem to believe that design applies to programming languages at all."

I was speculating that this belief is from folks that think design is just chrome.

Ah that explains things perfectly, sorry I misinterpreted you.

No worries. I should write more clearly and take this as help along the way!

I disagree. Most technologists agree design is important in PX (PL + tools), but programmers are more willing to put up with poorly designed experiences in exchange for the latest technology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com