Thanks for the nice illustration. It would be
(define initials
(string (string-ref (id-firstname (vector-ref person i)) 0)
(string-ref (id-lastname (vector-ref person i)) 0)))
but even with that we don't get the density of some path expression:
(define initials (string (@ person i firstname) (@ person i lastname)))
And now we're comparing with
initials = person[i].firstname[0] + person[i].lastname[0]
or
initials = (@ person i firstname) + (@ person i lastname)
Hmph.
On May 10, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Justin Zamora wrote:
> In my experience, the heaviness of Racket doesn't come from words like
> "define", etc. It comes in certain categories of programs that deal
> extensively with strings, vectors, and structured data. For example,
>
> initials = person[i].firstname[0] + person[i].lastname[0]
>
> This is very readable and useful. It can be written quickly and is
> read and understood easily The overloading of "+" (or your operator of
> choice) and the implicit coercion of characters to strings is exactly
> what is wanted here. Even evaluating person[i] more than once doesn't
> clutter up the expression.
>
> Compare this to the equivalent Racket:
>
> (define initials
> (string-append (string (string-ref (id-firstname (vector-ref person i)) 0))
> (string (string-ref (id-lastname (vector-ref person i)) 0))))
>
> For this sort of thing, the Racket version is much harder to write,
> read, and verify. It would be nice to have something akin to
> at-expressions that would allow such expressions to be written more
> clearly.
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I will assert something about readability:
>>
>> Racket programs look heavy when compared with Haskell programs.
>>
>> This is probably true for Python instead of Haskell, too. It is also true
>> for ML. I conjecture that part of that heaviness comes from wide lines, long
>> names, deep nesting. Who knows. I don't even know how to measure this kind
>> of property.
>>
>> At this point, I can express certain ideas more easily in Racket than in
>> Haskell, Python, ML or whatever, which is why I am fine. But if this
>> advantage ever disappeared, heaviness would definitely be a factor to weigh.
>>
>> -- Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2012, at 3:49 PM, ozzloy-racket-users wrote:
>>
>>> i didn't assert that word length has nothing to do with readability, just
>>> that word frequency has more impact on reading time than word length.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Luke Vilnis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I can only speak for myself but I think it's a bit much to assert that word
>>> length has nothing to do with readability. Heck, maybe that's even true for
>>> you, but not for everyone. I have certainly felt it to be an issue. If the
>>> "define" keyword was 50 letters long it would definitely have an impact on
>>> my ability to read code - it seems to be an issue of degree, not existence.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM, ozzloy-racket-users
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> am i the only one that thinks not having abbreviated names for anything is
>>> good?
>>> i like not having "def". especially if it's going to be redundant.
>>> i see this as a slippery slope i don't want to go down.
>>> it annoys me when switching to other languages to have to ask: which way of
>>> shortening "function" does this language go with? was it "fn"? maybe "fun"?
>>> if the language has a strict policy of not using short versions of words, i
>>> don't have to guess.
>>>
>>> as for "def" being easier to read than "define", that's not true. word
>>> frequency has more impact on reading time than word length for normal
>>> reading. having more aliases makes both less frequent, so adding "def"
>>> could plausibly make reading both take longer. most people read whole
>>> words at a time, rather than letter-by-letter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There is always pretty mode in Emacs.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Ray Racine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> FYI for those who may not know. Racket supports λ as an alias for lambda.
>>>> ctrl-\ in DrRacket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Nikita B. Zuev <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for `def' as alias for `define'.
>>>>> May I also suggest `fun' for `lambda' alias?
>>>>> Three letter names are the best =)
>>>>>
>>>>> (well one can always do it with require rename-in)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Nikita B. Zuev
>>>>> ____________________
>>>>> Racket Users list:
>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________
>>>> Racket Users list:
>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/
>>> ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE
>>>
>>> ____________________
>>> Racket Users list:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________
>>> Racket Users list:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________
>>> Racket Users list:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>> Racket Users list:
>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
