Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: Are programmers afraid of new syntax?
9 points by rs86 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 17 comments
I see many developers and companies adopt Elixir because "it looks like Ruby" but the two languages could not be more different. Why do programmers car so much about syntax?



It's not so much that they're afraid of it, it's that changing syntax imposes a mental tax on them for no reason. Once you've been programming in a language for more than a few months, you no longer think in terms of tokens. Rather, your muscle memory now has constructs for "This is what a variable binding looks like. This is what a for-each loop looks like. This is what a method call looks like," and you can just think in terms of the desired semantics rather than how to type that into an editor.

A language with a new and unfamiliar syntax requires that you unlearn all these key-bindings and start thinking on the level of tokens again. It's understandable that given the choice, people who have already graduated from this stage would rather not repeat it.


Yeah, for example I would be repulsed by a language that uses something like "x = 1" as a comparator instead of "x == 1".

It's sort of like one of those keyboards where the semicolon key is elsewhere or the PgDn button is bigger.


That makes them look like glorified cybernetic factory workers


On the other hand, spending most of your time learning new syntax as opposed to actually solving creative problems makes one more like a glorified factory worker.


Learning syntax is a non problem


...that's generally a waste of time.

Once people graduate from the "I'm going to learn ALL the things because it's fun and I got surplus brainpower", they usually discover that there are lots and lots of problems out there that require plenty of brainpower and people will actually pay you for solving. It's somewhat silly to allocate your mental effort to things that get you nothing but intellectual gratification when you can allocate it to things that get you intellectual gratification and monetary compensation that will let you do many things you otherwise can't.


Exactly. I can learn syntax if it's going to pay me back for the effort - if it's going to enable me to avoid bugs, or to solve problems I couldn't, or to be more productive, or to get or keep a job.

Learning syntax that isn't going to pay me back? I don't have time for that.


It takes half an hour to learn syntax


It takes a lot longer to learn syntax to the point where I don't have to think about it, so that I can spend my time thinking about the problem instead.

Having to think about the syntax is like not being a touch typist. Sure, I can still press the right keys, but I have to think about doing so, which slows me down and takes my thinking off of what I'm trying to say.


But does coding take more time typing rather than thinking?


You've answered your own question about why programmers don't like new syntax. Because most (interesting) coding takes more time thinking than typing, syntax is only a cost, never a benefit. If your language has familiar syntax, then they don't have to pay that cost. If it makes them learn new syntax, it better provide other benefits like access to a new platform, a job that pays much better, or eliminating a large class of bugs. And if two languages both offer that same benefit (like Erlang vs. Elixir, Matlab vs. Python, even Python/Ruby vs. Node.js) programmers will gravitate toward the one that doesn't make them learn new syntax.


People think haskell's or lisp's syntax is bad, but they bring awesome power to solve problems. They are the best languages.


(Something (a (small (set (of)) (((programmers have (been claiming) for) decades)) and yet) somehow they never, ever, take) off.))) ((I wonder) (why) that is))))?

The kind of problems that they help with are actually fairly rare, while their disadvantages are expensive. Basically the syntax sucks and all the really useful bits are now in all the other languages any way.


No, but there is a "not this shit again" attitude. Over the last 50 years it has been done. Most of the time people with a new syntax also have stupid names for already agreed upon constructs and ideas. Those people are trying too hard to be different. Maybe one language uses ->, another uses =>, so Joe Language programmer is going to use <!@==>>>. But no one is going to type <!@==>>>, so the language fails. Joe exits programming and there are 10,000 dead computer languages with worthless syntax that didn't help people write software better.


The older I get, the slower I feel. Projects seem to need more planning and I wish I was more spontaneous, but I realize documentation is important, or testing needs to be done, or branding should be polished up. Syntax is a small part of software development, but it's everywhere. I need to be productive, and I just don't want to be on this hamster wheel when I'm just trying to get something shipped to developers and users, which is hard enough on its own.


I've got used to polyglotting and constantly getting things wrong syntax wise!. When I'm editing a C#, a SQL, then a coffee script then a type script, then get home and write some Elm, things will get confusing!


Learning new things is hard.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: