http://search.cpan.org/dist/perlsecret/lib/perlsecret.pod#SY...

    =( )=  goatse operator

    Mathematica 10.0 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
    Copyright 1988-2014 Wolfram Research, Inc.

    In[1]:= FullForm[x->y*z^w]

    Out[1]//FullForm= Rule[x, Times[y, Power[z, w]]]

    In[2]:= x\[UnionPlus]y\[RightTee]z

    Out[2]= x ⊎ y ⊢ z

Eg if you are talking about groups in general, how do you pronounce the group operation ∘? At uni, we usually just called it Kringel.

Also fun:

    In[3]:= SpokenString[x\[SmallCircle]y]
    Out[3]= "SmallCircle of x and y"

    Speak[x\[SmallCircle]y]

hops on hipster hashrocket and tribbles off into the sunset

https://twitter.com/geeksam/status/618828713308753921

That whole list is gold. My favourite so far is "space station": -+-

Everything that's even remotely Applicative seems to have a tendency to export 20 variations of <*>.

Then there's Lenses, the coolest line noise you'll ever see.

Normal Scala code has fewer symbols than Ruby aside from function lifting (the underscore).

In fact, you've got Generics (square braces), curly braces for blocks, fatty arrows for call-by-name, functions parameters and pattern matching. Parens for methods and tuples. Underscore for function lifting. cons (double or triple colon). Stab by arrows as an optional shorthand infix notation for creating Pairs AKA Tuple2.

Every once in a blue moon you might see :+ to mean add a single item.

You can write a whole heckuva lot of Scala and never use much more than that. If you're facing symbolic overload then you should probably reevaluate the libraries you're using.

The only ones I use frequently that add anything else are spray-routing/akka-http's Route.~ to concatinate routes and json4s's JObject.~ to concatinate two objects together.

Yes there's a world of libraries that add a lot more, but they're entirely optional. You aren't a bad programmer if you do or do not use scalaz. (At least I don't consider myself a bad one, and I don't.)

Scala itself doesn't actually extend all that far beyond c#. The FUD around symbols in Scala is just that. You add cons, the occasional stabby arrow and the underscore and you've got the extent of Scala's additions you'll find in your average library.

I just do not get how people walk away with this impression. Especially Rubyists where ivars, cvars, pipe characters, two different HashMap styles etc is in everyday code.

IME Scala developers in-training don't actually have much trouble with this stuff. What they have trouble with is pattern-matching structure and function composition.

But Ruby can't do either.

In fact, other than the ability to invent more complex DSLs with more symbols I'm not actually sure that there's anything Ruby does better. Or more consistently.

Then I'd go back to the issue of: You might be using the wrong libraries if you find that frustrating.

I don't think any of the libraries I'm using in my current project utilize any typelevel stuff to a noticeable extent. I have seen it in my classpath, but haven't bothered to see where it's coming from and never run into any of it despite using CMD+B very frequently in IDEA.

You can go a pretty long ways with Scalatest, Akka, json4s, and maybe some commons stuff for REST service development. Play development isn't all that much different though.

If you're deep in science, maybe your library needs change. But then again I would assume less complaint over mathy concepts then. Maybe that's off-base.

I like the Litmus test that a ten year old should be able to read them, which means that +, *, / and - are fine but =~> and other nonsense should be banned.

If the wording bothers you, replace it with "We should only accept symbolic operators that are taught up to sixth grade".

& is maybe allowed. Sixth graders don't know about bitwise operations, but they know & means "and". That's stretching things a bit, though.

Is [] allowed for indexing? When I learned about arrays in sixth grade... No, wait, I didn't learn about arrays in sixth grade. For that matter, I didn't learn about functions using (): those are only for grouping expressions. Functions are just like, "sin 90". Also, since I didn't learn about code at sixth grade, I obviously didn't learn about using {} to delimit code blocks; , was only used in prose, not in mathematics.

Having said that, it's unclear why programming languages should be limited to operators that we can guarantee "sixth grade" students (whatever that happens to mean in your part of the world) will have heard of.

What actual benefit could it bring, other than (maybe) making it easier for somebody who hasn't learned a language to guess the meaning of a piece of code in that language? Is that benefit worth making code twice as long and rendering half the keyboard useless?

    main() {
      printf("hello, world\n");
    }

    the main procedure is:
      the message is "hello, world" plus a new line;
      display the message;
      stop.

Also, I despise the logic of "because it exists on a keyboard, it should be used". C is a terrible offender in this regard, with * and & used for no good reason.

10-years-old, or 6th grade, or whatever is an arbitrary number, but don't get caught up in the distinction. "90% of high school graduates" would institute a similar threshold, and probably be less controversial.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/ASCII.html

edit: Makes total sense. Thanks for the replies.

{:cats => "foo"}

(For full disclosure, the lens library is infamous for this.)

[0]: http://ekmett.github.io/lens/src/Control-Lens-Combinators.ht...

! is enunciated as "bang" from BASH parlance, iirc.

[0] http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/tonsila.htm...

Here's the response: Hi Christian, thanks for the Pull Request! But I think this is not appropriate rubygems/rubygems#124. :bow:

Took me a while to figure out why it was called that way.

Cigarette operator! This list is on fire.

Truthy is something that isn't exactly a true boolean but will equate to true(thy) when evaluated with this type of comparison. Things like undefined, null, and empty string will not be truthy.

More info on what's truthy (for JavaScript at least) is here http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/truthy-falsey/

edit: typically, if you want to test for truthy, you'll just evaluate it like so

if (my_object) { //truthy }else{ //not truthy }

Does anyone know a time when you'd use !! instead of just the object in the evaluation? I'm not a Ruby dev, so I don't know specific cases for needing !!

You could just use:

  return myObject;

But there are two advantages to doing this instead:

  return !! myObject;

2) Sometimes more importantly, you are now releasing this function's reference to the object, instead of possibly keeping that reference around much longer than needed and preventing it from being garbage collected.

```

    my_option = !!ENV[MY_OPTION] # is false when not set
    puts "my_option is: #{my_option}"

i've never used it... what's a good use case?