Everyone is a beginner before they become a practitioner.
Look at Perl for an example of what happened to a language with syntax that appealed only to people who were already Perl-practitioners.
Look at Perl for an example of what happened to a language with syntax that appealed only to people who were already Perl-practitioners.
It became for several years one of the most successful and widely used scripting languages on Unix?
The idea that today's languages and technologies are truly better than the past is laughable, particularly when they recycle so much of what is old and slap on a new name
That's really orthogonal to the discussion, though. This isn't about general superiority, it's about legibility and barriers to understanding/skill due to syntax and keywords. Perl is infamous for the "code golf is the default style" syntax, keywords, and tokens it employs in this context, and in my experience at least its most ardent fans believe it is a badge of honor.
It isn't, really, and it's the same mistake PG makes when discussing "car", "cons" and the like.
Indeed. And I disagree with your opinion. For all its terseness its still wonderfully expressive and it goes against the horrible trend set by Python with its "one true way" bullshit. That we all so willingly accept the commodification of our trade so the paymasters can eventually decrease our demand is shameful.
We should strive for a certain level of difficulty if anything to separate the wheat from the chaff. You wanna play with the big boys? Learn to code in a big boy language.
Instead we let the trainwreck that is modern JS take over.
Now, you are right that the syntax is for practitioners. But if it's too bizarre to non-practitioners, it is in fact a barrier to entry.
Sure, being a beginner is a temporary situation, but let's not excuse absurdities and unnecessary convolutions as a result.
The argument actually says "don't optimize notation for beginners, optimize for practitioners". It doesn't imply making things difficult for beginners on purpose; just that they are not the priority.
I just don't even think it's a useful remark because you can just claim people you disagree with are beginners and people you agree with are practitioners and now anything can be argued.
I wouldn't call people who disagree with me on PL design issues beginners. I would call beginners beginners. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of experience and time working on real projects with a language.
What about languages who support multiple ways to do something in a semi-inconsistent manner?
For example with Elixir, in a lot of cases you end up calling certain standard library functions like foo(hello: :world) while others are foo(:hello, :world). Now, there's special magic happening in the first case but stuff like this is super confusing and it gets easily compounded with more complex examples.
As a beginner I found Ecto's various ways to calls things super confusing and I had to reference examples almost all the time to get the syntax right (which often had multiple ways of being "right"), but I've also talked with more experienced Elixir developers and they get hung up with Ecto's syntax too.
So where do you draw the line between making the language / DSL better and keeping it catered to only folks who are basically at the same skill level of the language creator?
One of the super cool things about Elixir is how easy it is to extend the language with DSLs. However (and Jose et al are very up front about this), the more DSLs and macros you use, the more confusing it's going to be. Using macros is a tradeoff because it can be a very neat solution but it also obscures what the code is doing quite a bit.
Re. foo(hello: :world) vs foo(:hello, :world) - that one I got the hang of more quickly, though I'll admit it's confusing at first. In the first you're providing a keyword list (which is merely a list of 2-membered tuples where the first member of the tuple is an atom). And when a keyword list is the last (or only) argument to a function it can be provided without the brackets. So the same thing could be written as foo([{hello:, :world}]) or also foo([hello: :world]). In foo(:hello, :world) you're just providing arguments. When you're first learning the language this can definitely trip you up but I think once you become a "practitioner" it's not too bad and ends up being pretty nice.
God Elixir is so cool.
They seem like a good thing to me!
The aim is never to make things difficult for beginners on purpose. The point is that making things less confusing for beginners is not worthwhile if it comes at the cost of making things more cumbersome for practitioners.
I actually agree with the comment which states "But that's not really a beginner-specific problem. Even practitioners will likely find it to be a nuisance."
But that's not really a beginner-specific problem. Even practitioners will likely find it to be a nuisance.
Concepts are way more important. Spending time on syntax is like having a course in tar --flags.