for loop parens

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 05:08:11PM +0200, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 01:06:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >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.
> >
> 
> Of course, .net demonstrates this very well... but do you really
> expect most people to really be able to think that abstractly?
> Syntax is meaningless but necessary... see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge.

That's not a fair example. I *did* say, as long as the syntax is not
*too* ugly. Malbolge doesn't qualify. :)  I mean, if you really want to
push this to the extreme, you could say we should all just write lambda
expressions, since it's all Turing-complete anyway.

The difference between D and Malbolge is on a totally different scale
than the difference between for(...){...} and for ...{...}. Just because
the difference between walking to a destination vs. driving there is a
big difference, doesn't mean that the difference between whether you
wear a red shirt vs. a white shirt while travelling is an important
issue.


T

-- 
Windows 95 was a joke, and Windows 98 was the punchline.