Some functions also don’t have any parentheses, like field access or infix operators.
You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.
I’m kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point.
Is this intentional at your part?
We could follow this line of thinking further …
No we don’t. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion … then you have no point.
You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.
What?
I’m kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?
We are ultimately arguing about subjective preferences. I favor of certain syntactic sugar because I believe it improves readability while you seem to be arguing for strict consistency above all else.
So by what metric are we measuring our points?
No we don’t. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion … then you have no point.
I admit, that was hyperbolic, but I don’t see what syntax for data manipulation other than functions would be left in your ideal language.
You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.
I’m kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?
No we don’t. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion … then you have no point.
What?
We are ultimately arguing about subjective preferences. I favor of certain syntactic sugar because I believe it improves readability while you seem to be arguing for strict consistency above all else.
So by what metric are we measuring our points?
I admit, that was hyperbolic, but I don’t see what syntax for data manipulation other than functions would be left in your ideal language.