for loop parens

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:51:21PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 7/12/13 1:46 PM, ixid wrote:
[...]
> >It seems a pity that D is achieving such power and elegance in some
> >areas while failing to take on some of the syntactic beauty that is
> >within reach. The ultimate language would look something like D
> >crossed with Go in my eyes. It would be interesting if someone were
> >able to make a D subset that showed what it could look like. There is
> >significant value to being easy to read and write, making the
> >language naturally more appealing for users just as speed makes
> >applications much more attractive to users.
> 
> One person's beauty is another person's ugly.  This is an area that
> reasonable people are going to disagree on.  You're feeling on their
> reasons is rather dismissive.

I find this fixation on syntax rather strange. As long as the syntax is
not *too* ugly (*cough*C++ templates*cough*) isn't the *semantics* more
important? A pretty language that has limited expressiveness is useless;
a powerful language that's a bit ugly in syntax isn't any less powerful
because of it.


T

-- 
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.