On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Ian Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19/07/2008, at 11:36 PM, Michael Ash wrote: > >> The universe of programming languages extends far beyond this little >> island of ALGOL-lookalikes. Objective-C messaging syntax is utterly >> mundane compared to many common, useful syntaxes used in practical >> (but different) languages every day. IMO you do yourself a disservice >> if you don't branch out and try some different things once in a while, >> and remember that they're just programming languages, and syntax is >> just syntax, nothing really all that important. > > Except that syntax is the medium to convey meaning, thus to make it easier > for others to understand what a program is about.
But, in general, syntaxes do this roughly equally well, once you get used to them. Sure, there are crushingly bad syntaxes, and the occasional ones which exceed the mediocre, but for the most part, syntax is just different, not better. > If it were not so, we may > as well have stuck to programming machine language in 1s and 0s. Thus syntax > is important... or at least the manifestation of that which is important. This doesn't make any sense to me. Semantics, not syntax, is what sets a high-level language apart from machine language. The fact that I can write "a + b" instead of the machine code for an add instruction isn't nearly as interesting as the fact that I can write function calls and data types and methods. > I like a Steve Jobs quote from 1996: "Design is a funny word. Some people > think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's > really how it works." Clean syntax reflects clean functionality. In my mind, that Jobs quote doesn't support the following sentence. He's not saying that good looks imply good functionality. He's saying that design is about function, and *not* about looks. In other words, it's less important that a device look good than it is for it to be easy to use, intuitive, etc. This mirrors my opinion about computer languages. How it looks is not really all that important compared to how it works. Whether you invoke methods using a dot or using braces is of piffling insignificance compared to whether the language supports duck typing, whether arguments are passed by reference, by value, by name, or some other way, whether the OO system is class-based or prototype-based or nonexistent, the semantics of dispatch, and all the rest. This is why I'm always surprised to see people complain about the brackets, and why I wrote that reply in this thread. To me, brackets-versus-something-else is as relevant as the color of a race car: you'll get used to it if you don't like it, and in any case it doesn't affect anything important. I mean no offense by this, but if someone gets hung up on that, it's possible (note before flaming: I said it's *possible*) that he's missing the deeper stuff. Mike _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
