On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed the for loop is also not very readable - at least it is c-like > and once you know the c-like loop definitions you can read it in all > languages that use that style. > > BTW: Java already allows this: > for (Object object : list) > { > } > which is more readable (although that style has it's limitations - you > can't manipulate the current index). > >> The underscore requires a guess, but >> if you know what a map function does and have ever used one in any >> language, it's not too great a leap to guess. > > It needs more explanation than any short adequate keyword. This is a > reason why so many people hate Perl (me too).
This just illustrates the point I'm trying to make. So you're okay with the ':' special character but the '_' in the Scala example requires too much explanation? If you don't understand a map function or a for loop, neither is going to be very readable, but at that point the deficiency isn't within the language syntax. I'll grant you that the underscore represents a concept which is expressed using different characters in different languages, but you're admitting that one reads better than the other simply because of your bias toward c-like languages. Those coming from a more functional background may have the opposite opinion. Does that make either style quantitatively better? Software developers are generally flexible and intelligent people, and perhaps you're being a bit obstinate about their inability to understand programming languages. -Lyle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
