[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: succinctness = power

My 2c,

w0*readability+w1*regularity+w2*expressiveness+w3*succinctness = power

(where w0 >= w1 >= w2 >=w3).

So the more of each of these qualities you can add *without*
sacrificing the others, the more powerful the language. The more I
have to think to understand what a particular piece of code does (eg
call/cc, APL/J, perl one liners, regexp notation), the less spare
brain cycles I have to build abstractions upon it, which makes me
think of the learning theory described at ...



Paul Graham <paulgraham@yahoo.com> writes:

> Paul Prescod said something in a recent mail on this list
> that stuck in my mind:
>   Python's goal is regularity and readability, not
>   succinctness. 
> This topic of succinctness is something we (and language
> designers generally) have tiptoed around.  I think it is
> an important one.  The more I think about it, succinctness
> seems to be what languages are *for*.  If so, to say that
> the aim of a language is not to be succinct seems almost
> to say that its aim is not to be a good programming
> language.
> At any rate, it seemed like it might be a good idea to
> take the question of succinctness head on.  To avoid 
> spamming this whole list with a long piece on the topic
> (and because I want to build a collection of related
> links) I put this on a web page:
> http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html
> Comments (either here on ll1 or to me directly) are
> appreciated.  Let me know especially if you know of any
> links to stuff about this question.
> --pg
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> http://launch.yahoo.com