Hacker News Reader

Comment by eklavya | Hacker News Reader

> It's crazy that in these slides he says "I wanted a hipster language" -- most languages use [] for arrays so I used (). WHY!!!!? Just to be different? No actual real advantage? That's a terrible reason and a great way to make it hard for new people to adopt your language.

func<Future<List<Option<String>>>> vs func[Future[List[Option[String]]]]

Which one is easier on your eyes?

View on HN

>>func<Future<List<Option<String>>>> vs func[Future[List[Option[String]]]]

>Which one is easier on your eyes?

i don't get the joke here. Or are you seriously implying that one is in someway better than the other? (i'm curious as i've been in the industry for more than two decades, so my eyes just filter that crap automatically anyway)

I am seriously implying that one is easier on the eyes than other.

Granted I'm biased as I'm primarily a scala dev these days but I've always preferred the square brackets over the angle brackets. At least for me it is actually more readable.

Angle brackets aren't even very readable, couple that with the fact that they are also OPERARTORS and you are looking at some major complexity in your parser to distinguish between bracket usage and operator usage (possible, but requires looking ahead, worse syntax errors).

Or just terrible syntax choices like in Java or Rust.

That's really not a fair comparison here. With a monospaced font, it's much more comparable:

  func<Future<List<Option<String>>>>
  func[Future[List[Option[String]]]]

Or, maybe, perhaps:

func(Future(List(Option(String))))

Err, no... One is a type construction, the other is function application. It sure helps if these are different...

Conceivably, it could be application of a type constructor to type arguments, where parens control precedence, not application:

    Func (Future (List (Option String)))

Reply on news.ycombinator.com