"F i L" <witte2...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jzkatvnibtjkcafqs...@forum.dlang.org... >> All of the syntaxes you're advocating are every bit as arbitrary as the >> ones you're against. > > Programming is logic largely based around math.
Yes, it's *based* around math, but it *isn't* math. English is based largely around German and Latin, and yet it's neither German nor Latin, nor a mere conjunction of them, nor can one say that it *should* be. Of course, you can pick that analogy to death, but the point is, things don't have to maintain a heavy resemblance to their origin. > Seeing as how we're all educated around with mathematic symbols as > children, a language design which reflects what is most familiar will be > the easiest to initially understand. Less friction means more > productivity. > You're talking about very minor details that are trivial to learn (I was only about 12 or 13 when I learned C). The prodictivity drop in these cases is *purely* a *minor* upfront cost, and with no ongoing cost (but does have ongoing *benefits* because it's designed specifically with *it's own* domain in mind instead being hampered by unnecessary ties to some other domain).