@property needed or not needed?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-11-20 08:48, thedeemon wrote:

> This is just an old habit to see identifier with parens as a function
> call and identifier without parens as a variable, so calling functions
> without parens seem too unconventional to you. However there are many
> languages which dropped this tradition and they are known for being
> expressive and concise, that's why people love them. Recently we saw an
> article from Walter about component programming which one could say was
> really about function composition. It's really convenient to write code
> in conveyor-style, this is what we see often in functional languages, as
> well as some dynamic OO ones. For example, the task of reversing words
> in a string may look like:

I completely agree.

> "one two three".split.map{|s| s.reverse}.join(' ')
> in Ruby

In this particular case you can use a shorter form of the map call:

"one two three".split.map(&:reverse).join(' ')

> print . unwords . map reverse . words $ "one two three"
> in Haskell
>
> "one two three" |> split " " |> List.map reverse |> String.join " " |>
> print_string
> in OCaml
> and something similar and even without dots in Scala.

Wouldn't the Scala syntax look fairly similar to Ruby:

"one two three".split.map(reverse).join(' ')

> Ease of chaining functions together is one of the things that make those
> languages so pleasant to work with. I love to have the same in current D
> and it would be a pity to lose it due to a clash with some old-fashioned
> tradition.

I completely agree again.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg