Post #563627

2026-03-07 02:50 UTC

@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca To be sure, my Perl tends to be more structured. On the other hand, I also hate Moose (Perl's attempt at CLOS) and have thus far succeeded in keeping that out of my life. I also remember there being a time in my life when I could read and understand APL. But if you do think it's possible to come up with some kind of useful formal definition/criterion for "expressiveness", go for it. I'll believe it when I see it. 11/11

Replies (3)

@wrog@mastodon.murkworks.net 2026-03-07 19:34

@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca ... and, crap, I messed up the threading (it seems 9 and 10 are siblings, so you'll miss 9 if you're reading from here. Go back to 8.) (I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...) $/11

Open ##575040
@screwlisp@gamerplus.org 2026-03-07 03:33

@wrog Thank-you for the wonderful autobiography! @dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @cdegroot

Open ##1444944
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-07 14:14

@ramin_hal9001 Some clearly prefer concise, but nonetheless it is orthogonal to expressive. 'Expressive' != 'my favorite approach' -- ideally expressiveness can be determined objectively by human factors studies. Failing that, sure, it's then subjective and subject to unbounded argument. :) @kentpitman @screwlisp @wrog @cdegroot

Open ##1444946