> if you’re going down that route, you could claim that any feature not necessary for turing completeness conflicts with the one way to do it strategy
I suppose one could do that, philosophically if not practically. What I had in mind was the various syntax sugars used for the same thing, particularly in Ruby. While some ways of doing things in Ruby were convenient, there was a host of other "shortcuts" that added to the confusion, and it was evident that it was the design of the language itself - not an accident - that allowed these shortcuts, at least imo.
> On a side note: I don’t use comment voting systems
I had a feeling you might say that, but I'd already clicked the "reply" button. Sorry for being presumptuous.
Not that I care about the voting system either, but people tend to use it as a cowardly way of showing disapproval.
I suppose one could do that, philosophically if not practically. What I had in mind was the various syntax sugars used for the same thing, particularly in Ruby. While some ways of doing things in Ruby were convenient, there was a host of other "shortcuts" that added to the confusion, and it was evident that it was the design of the language itself - not an accident - that allowed these shortcuts, at least imo.
> On a side note: I don’t use comment voting systems
I had a feeling you might say that, but I'd already clicked the "reply" button. Sorry for being presumptuous.
Not that I care about the voting system either, but people tend to use it as a cowardly way of showing disapproval.