Hacker News Reader

I agree; I don't think BQN values terseness more than k. I think k values terseness a lot.

I think it may be more convenient to write terse code in BQN over k, because there is greater facility to control function calls in a terse way. Things like under and over are quite common patterns that BQN finds easier (and shorter) than k.

I've not spent a great deal of time yet with BQN, so this could be wrong.

View on HN

Yeah, under and over are great (wish k had more 'combinators' in general), but k does manage to cram a lot of stuff in with overloads. I feel like k is terser in general but I don't really have much evidence to back it up, just from playing a bit with both of them.

The different character sets make it impossible to say what this would mean. My limited code golf experience is that most often BQN solutions use fewer characters than K ones, but BQN has 63 primitive glyphs to K's 25 or so (depending on version). I do think K design values using its limited resources to enable terse code more than BQN, but if screen space is what you care about then BQN will tend to use less of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com