> Not if you support variant types and the like.
Not sure what you mean here - discriminant unions? classes?
No, I don't assume that. But I think that that's irrelevant. People didn't know "def" means function in Python or Scala either, but they learn it on the first day and don't have a readability problem with it.
Very basic keywords like "fn" are not the things that make a language unreadable, nor is calling the keyword "fn" instead of "function". Those are memorized in a day or so and you're done with it.
It's other things that make languages unreadable (too many sigils, overloaded operators or keywords in different contexts (C++, Perl), single letter operators (e.g. APL), too low level, too much verbosity, etc.
In any case, whether a person that first encounter a language immediately recognizes what a keyword means is not what makes the language readable. It's how readable it is to its programmers, after they know the language and have written code in it that matters. Familiar != readable.
>Everybody and their grandma can read Pascal and Ada, but abbreviated keywords and magical symbol require foreknowledge.
And almost everybody and their grandma dislike their syntax (especially Ada's), and would prefer something less verbose.
>And the more abbreviated, the more you will have to continuously look up things in the reference manual until they get cemented.
It's after such basics "get cemented" that readability comes into play, not before. If someone has to look after 2-3 days with the language what "fn" means or how to declare a function (and similarly, "def" in Python/Scala, etc), they have some serious memory issues.
(Btw, Rust, Clojure, and others also use "fn").
>Not sure what you mean here - discriminant unions? classes?
Yes, aka variant, aka tagged union, aka sum type...
Woa there, ever look at vector math libraries in C - horribly unreadable and ugly.
> too much verbosity
Verbosity describes a programs behavior without implied knowledge thus a reader of some code will understand exactly what is meant. I disagree that the definition of readability is all about how quickly you can skim source code - and ew too many words.
> And almost everybody and their grandma dislike their syntax (especially Ada's), and would prefer something less verbose.
Well, they were objectively designed to readability based on studies of other languages (at least Ada). And hey, I like it but I guess I am biased : P
Readability is not just about "understanding what is meant if you take the time". It's also about each piece of code being easy to scan and understand to find what you need. Devs have to scan whole projects to find what happens where, and there's a balance between cryptic very succinct statements and getting lost in expanded verbosity.
Verbosity hurts that by making less code fit on your screen, the code having more stuff that's needed to convey the meaning, etc. You get lost in the extra details, and have more baggage to keep in mind.
It's the difference between saying, e.g.: "Yeah", and "I am indeed craving something savory with lots of melted curdled milk and processed pork cuts, and I believe that we can immediately proceed with the thing that we were just now discussing to do".
Which is one is the more "readable" answer to "Wanna go for a pizza?".
But something like "fn" isn't going to be a problem, because you're going to use it a dozen times before you finish the tutorial. Symbols are also OK in proportion to their commonality. Rarely used symbols become more problematic. This can be mitigated if there's a clean way to find documentation for them, though you can't get around the problem that google is unlikely to ever be useful for them.
People have a habit of automatically doing this. It's why pretty much every niche field or industry develops jargon and three letter acronyms. Everyone gets tired of saying the whole thing so it's shortened.
Not only does it just make sense that things like "fn" are going to be okay, but there's also some mathematical backing as to why it's okay.
For example look at this object declaration in Ada - you may not know Ada and the symbols associated with pointers but you will know exactly what it is:
type My_Arr is array (1..10) of Natural;
My_Fancy_Obj : not null access My_Arr :=
new My_Arr'(1..4 => 0, others => 1234); type My_Arr is array (1..10) of Natural;
Based on the first word being `type`, I'm guessing this is a type declaration for a new type named `My_Arr`. And `is array` makes me think that this is an array of some kind. But then I get to `(1..10)` and I'm lost. Is this a dependent type? Is it an initialized value? I'm genuinely not sure. The `of Natural` at the end tells me that `My_Arr` is an array of natural numbers, I guess, but I'm lost on the `(1..10)` bit. I figure it could either be:
a) `My_Arr` is the type of arrays of natural numbers of length 1..10 (is that inclusive? exclusive? unsure) or b) `My_Arr` is the type of arrays consisting of only the natural numbers 1..10 (again, unsure whether inclusive or exclusive)
Or I guess it could be something else, though I'm not sure exactly what that'd be.
My_Fancy_Obj : not null access My_Arr := ...
`not null access` is weird to me. I mean, "not null" is straightforward enough (`My_Fancy_Obj` can never have a null value), but I'm not sure what "access" means. Is it a reference type? Like a pointer? Or something? I dunno what else it could be.
So `My_Fancy_Obj` is really a box (reference/pointer) containing a `My_Arr`, and it can never be null.
Now... looking at the initialization...
... new My_Arr'(1..4 => 0, others => 1234);
I guess the values 1..4 (inclusive? exclusive? shrug) are initialized to zero. And the "others" are initialized to... the value 1,234? I guess? But how long is this array? The presence of an `others` keyword (I'm assuming it's a keyword, or an initialization argument I suppose) tells me that it must be obvious to the interpreter/compiler exactly how many values there are. So... I guess that means `My_Arr` is actually an array of exactly length 10? Why on earth would they have the `array (1..10)` syntax for that, instead of like `array 10` or `array(10)` or something. That's confusing.
So I guess we end up with something like `[0, 0, 0, 0, 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234]`?
Anyway, this example did not achieve your desired result — at least, not from my perspective.
So, what your first line should be if we were really spelling things out:
classification definition named: "My_Arr" is: "list (1..10)" which will contain: "numbers zero and greater but without decimals"
But you aren't spelling things out. You're using specialized terms to reduce the amount of typing you have to do because the terms in question happen to come up frequently. Welcome to the club.
Which is also tied into a discussion a few days ago, how the most common verbs (e.g. be) are much shorter and irregular in most languages -- because they are fetched from a direct, small, cache of readily usable forms, and not supposed to be derived from the general rules (e.g. adding -ed) like common verbs (which is slower).