Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) with =>

[John Porter]

Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Generality good.  
> 
> For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality bad. 
> Specificity and specialization good. People aren't generalists. They're a 
> collection of specialists. The distinction is important.

I'm sorry if I don't find this argument convincing.
This argument suggests that *every* type carry a distinguishing
prefix symbol -- including ones to distinguish between numbers and
strings, say.  Of course, you don't mean this.  A balance must be
struck.  And while we're looking for the equilibrium, let's not
prejudicially presume that "no symbols" is not an option.


> Even assuming highlander types, the punctuation carries a rather 
> significant amount of contextual information very compactly. 

Yep.  So, what's the gripe with it? 
Other than that it's not what you're used to, I mean.


> ...exploiting instinct and 
> inherent capabilities give you faster response times, and quicker 
> comprehension.

Sure.  But "instinct and inherent capabilities" do not apply here.

-- 
John Porter

        Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.