Re:On the foolishness of “natural language programming” (1979)
by dragonwriter on Saturday September 19, 2020 @09:25PM
(#24531356)
Python is quite light on syntax compared to several other scripting languages (Ruby and Perl/Raku come to mind.)
Re:On the foolishness of “natural language programming” (1979)
by DonHopkins on Sunday September 20, 2020 @08:24AM
(#24533594)
Python has syntactic sugar, but Perl has syntactic syrup of ipecac.
Re:On the foolishness of “natural language programming” (1979)
by fennecfoxen on Sunday September 20, 2020 @10:18AM
(#24534190)
Sometimes the Perl sugar is pretty sweet, though.
my %h1 = ("xyz" => 2);
my %h2 = ("abc" => 9, "def" => 3);
# hashmap from Hash::MostUtils
my %hash = hashmap { "$b-$a" => $a * $b }
%h1, %h2, "eieio" => 0, "abc" => 1;
# "0-eieio" => "",
# "1-abc" -> "abc"
# "2-xyz" => "xyzxyz"
# "3-def" => "defdefdef"
Oh, you mean light on symbols in the syntax. Python has a ridiculous mess of syntax, but it's mostly in the form of words.