On Aug 6, 3:07 pm, JodaStephen <[email protected]> wrote: > Excellentt work. I believe that the grammer size comparison is a much > more reasonable than spec pages. I'd also say that a reduction in > grammer size of 30% intuitively sounds about right. > > More broadly, I would argue that there is a general acceptance that > any language beyond Java will not have exposed primitives, arrays or > checked exceptions, but will add other features like closures. Clearly > this will result in some aspects where the grammer shrinks and some > where it grows.
Grammar is totally meaningless. The complexity of a language has nothing to do with how much sugar it gives you, which is where most grammar complexity comes from. For example, Ruby allows both optional parens and optional line- terminating semicolons. It allows very complex nesting of interpolated strings that feel natural but make parsing much more complicated. The fact that Ruby goes above and beyond as far as making code look nice and be fun to write doesn't have *anything* to do with the complexity of the language. - Charlie -- 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.
