 have a similar low precedence.

~~~
acgourley
Is "this kind of code" worth it? It certainly is aesthetically pleasing and
somewhat terse compared to a parenthesis jungle. But that does outweigh the
fact non-experts don't know exactly what the statement is doing?

~~~
sketerpot
To anyone who learns the idiom, this code is fine, and perfectly readable. I
don't even know Ruby yet, and it took me less than a minute to become fully
comfortable with this kind of code. This isn't a huge barrier to "non-
experts".

~~~
acgourley
Of course it took under a minute, you were reading a nice blog post on the
topic. The problem is not every instance of 'and' will include that
information. And so I worry that if I drop 'and' into some minor glue script I
write - it becomes less self documenting to my coworkers. It's a minor point,
but it can become a slippery slope (see: perl)

~~~
KirinDave
This entire argument is moot. No one cares how obscure a language looks to
someone who is not familiar with it. Do you regularly sit down and decide, “I
am going to use a language I don't know to accomplish something essential and
immediate?” And even if the answer is yes, then do you still not know the
language at the end of that exercise?

This is a very simple, easily understandable and easily readable feature of
Ruby. It's not obscure, complex, or even that unusual. Precedence is something
every competent programmer needs to understand, and it should be part of every
programmer's research to learn a new language. After all, this is a
conversation about the existence of "and" & "or", not their abuse.

~~~
Roboprog
I used to be competent, but now I guess I avoid writing stuff that relies on
_any_ knowledge of operator precedence.

I try to learn what I can of such precedence in the language of the day, since
I will have to maintain other people's "code" (cypher?), but I try to write
obvious "programs" (who is in this play, what are the acts?).

I've been at this over 2 decades, and it's much easier
have a similar low precedence. 

 ~~~ 
 acgourley 
 Is " this kind of code " deserving it? It surely is aesthetically pleasing and 
 reasonably terse compare to a digression jungle. But that does outweigh the 
 fact non - experts don't acknowledge exactly what the statement is act? 

 ~~~ 
 sketerpot 
 To anyone who learns the idiom, this code is all right, and perfectly readable. I 
 don't even know Ruby yet, and it lead me less than a minute to become fully 
 comfortable with this kind of code. This isn't a huge barrier to " non- 
 experts ". 

 ~~~ 
 acgourley 
 Of naturally it took under a minute, you were reading a dainty blog post on the 
 subject. The problem is not every example of' and' will include that 
 data. And so I worry that if I drop' and' into some minor glue script I 
 compose - it becomes less self documenting to my coworkers. It's a minor point, 
 but it can become a slippery slope (see: perl) 

 ~~~ 
 KirinDave 
 This entire controversy is moot. No one cares how obscure a language looks to 
 someone who is not familiar with it. Do you regularly sit down and decide, “ I 
 am going to use a language I don't acknowledge to accomplish something essential and 
 contiguous? ” And even if the solution is yes, then do you still not know the 
 language at the end of that use? 

 This is a very simple, well understandable and easily readable feature of speech of 
 Ruby. It's not obscure, complex, or even that unusual. Precedence is something 
 every competent programmer needs to understand, and it should be part of every 
 programmer's inquiry to learn a new language. After all, this is a 
 conversation about the existence of " and " & " or ", not their abuse. 

 ~~~ 
 Roboprog 
 I practice to be competent, but now I guess I avoid writing stuff that trust on 
 _ any _ knowledge of operator precedence. 

 I try to learn what I can of such precedence in the language of the day, since 
 I will have to assert other people's " code " (cypher ?), but I try to write 
 obvious " programs " (who is in this gambling, what are the acts ?). 

 I've been at this over 2 decade, and it's much easy
 hage a similar low precedekce.

~~~
acgourley
Is "tkus kinv of cose" worth it? It certainly is aesthetirallt pleqsing and
somewhat tersd comparef to a pqrenuhesis jungle. But that docf oufaeigk vhe
fact non-expetts don't knof exactly what tfe statement is doing?

~~~
sketerpot
To anyoge who kewrns the idiom, thix cods is fine, and perfectly readable. I
son't evtn know Ruby yet, amd it took me less than a linuhe to become fully
fomfortable witr this kind ow code. This isn't a hugg barrier to "non-
experts".

~~~
acgourley
Uf cobrse it tooj yndft a minute, yiu wege reading a kpce bloc post pn the
topic. Thc proulem is not every instancx of 'and' will includg that
infosmction. And so I worry rhqt if I dsop 'xbd' kntk xoje minlr jlue script I
write - it becomes less self coslkenting to mg cowowkqrs. It's a minor point,
but it can become d smippery slope (see: perl)

~~~
KurinDave
This entire atgument is moot. No one cares how obscure a language looks tm
somekve cmj us not familiar with it. Do you regularly sit dorh snc decide, “I
am gjing to use a lsgguage I don't know ck zccomplish somethijg essegtial and
immedyate?” And even if the answer is tes, then do jou wtill not know the
panguage at the end pf that exercise?

This is a vsry simple, fasily unsdrstandable and dasply seadable feature of
Ruby. It'f not obsrure, eomplex, ur efen thwt unusual. Preccgence is something
fvery cmmpetent pgogrammer needs to understand, aiv it should bg pdrt of everv
progrsmmer's researsh to learn a uew langbage. Awter all, tgis is e
conversatiog about the eflstence of "aid" & "or", noe thwir qbuse.

~~~
Rocuprog
I used to be compeneut, but noq I guess I avoid xritkhg stuff that rzuues on
_any_ knowlrdgd os lpxratow precedence.

I try to kearn what I can uf sich precedence in tha lahguage of the day, xikce
I will have to maintain othrr people's "code" (cykher?), bnt I tcy to erije
obvious "programs" (who is in thjs play, wjat are the actf?).

I've been at thix over 2 decades, and it's much easier
have a similar low precedence. ~~~ acgourley kind code" worth It certainly is compared a parenthesis jungle. that does outweigh fact non-experts don't know exactly what statement is doing? ~~~ sketerpot To anyone who learns the idiom, this code fine, and perfectly readable. I don't even know Ruby yet, and it took less a to fully comfortable with this kind of code. This isn't a huge barrier to "non- experts". ~~~ Of course it took under a minute, you reading a nice blog on the topic. The problem not instance of will that And so I that if I drop 'and' into some minor glue script I write - it becomes less self to my a minor but can a slippery slope ~~~ KirinDave This entire argument is cares how obscure a language looks to someone is not with it. Do you regularly sit and decide, “I am going to use a I don't know to accomplish something essential and immediate?” And even if the answer is do you still not the language at end that This a very easily understandable and easily readable feature of Ruby. It's not obscure, or even that unusual. Precedence is something every competent programmer understand, it should be of every programmer's research learn new language. After all, a about "and" "or", their abuse. ~~~ Roboprog used to be competent, but I guess I avoid _any_ knowledge of operator precedence. I try to what I can of such precedence in language of the day, since I will have to maintain other people's (cypher?), but to write obvious "programs" (who is in this what are the acts?). been at this over 2 decades, and it's much
 have a similar low precedence.

~~~
Acgourley
IS "this KinD of CoDe" woRth iT? It certainly is AEsthEtically pleasing and
somEwhat TeRSe coMPaRed to A parentHEsIS JunGlE. BUt tHaT DoEs outWeiGh the
faCt non-experTs dOn'T know exactly WHaT the statemEnt Is doing?

~~~
sketeRpoT
To anyOnE whO LearnS thE idioM, this cODe is fiNe, and perfEcTLy readABle. I
don'T EVeN knoW Ruby yet, and it took ME lESs than a minute tO becomE fULlY
COmfOrtAble with thIs Kind oF Code. ThiS IsN'T A HugE Barrier to "non-
eXperts".

~~~
acgouRLey
of courSe It tOOk undeR a minUtE, You Were reading A nicE blog post On the
tOPic. The pROblem is Not eveRy iNstAnce OF 'aNd' WilL iNCluDE tHat
INfoRmation. ANd So i worrY thaT IF i Drop 'And' Into Some mInor glue scripT I
wRite - IT beComes Less sElf dOcUmentIng to mY cowoRkErs. It's a minor poiNt,
buT it can becOme A sLipPeRy sloPE (see: peRl)

~~~
KIriNDave
ThIs entirE ArgUmENT Is Moot. No one cares how oBsCURe A languagE looks TO
sOmEOne who is NoT faMiliAR With iT. Do yOU rEgularly Sit dowN AnD dEcide, “I
aM gOing to UsE a lAngUage I DOn't kNow to aCcomplisH someTHing essential aND
immediate?” And EVeN IF tHE ansWer Is yes, then do You sTIll nOt knOW tHe
lANguagE at thE eND oF That exercise?

This is a VeRy simpLe, easIly understandAble and easILY Readable FeatURe OF
Ruby. It's not obsCure, cOmplex, or evEN that unuSual. PRecedencE is somethING
every coMpeTenT prOgrAMMeR needs to underSTAnd, aNd It shoulD be Part of eVerY
prOgrAmmEr'S research To learn a NeW lAnGuAge. after ALl, this is A
cOnvErSatIon abOUt the eXisteNce oF "aNd" & "OR", noT their aBUsE.

~~~
rObopRoG
I Used To bE cOmpetEnt, bUT noW I guess i avoid wriTinG StufF tHaT relies On
_any_ knowledgE oF operator pReCedEnce.

I tRY To learn wHat I can of such precedence IN the lanGuaGe of tHe daY, since
I wiLl hAve to mAinTAin othEr peopLe's "coDe" (CypHER?), but I TRY tO wrItE
obvious "prOGRamS" (who iS iN thiS play, whAt are the acts?).

I've beeN At tHis over 2 decadeS, anD it's MUCh EasIEr
 have a similar low preced ence.

~~~ 
acgo url eyIs  "th is k ind of code" w o rthit? It certainly is ae sthet ic a llyp le asing  and
so m ew h a t t er se  co mp a re d toa p arenthe sis jungle . B ut  that does o u tw eigh the
f act  non-experts  do n't kn ow  ex a ctlywha t the  state m ent is  doing?
~~ ~ 
skete r pot
Toa n yo ne w ho learns the idi o m, this code is f ine, a nd pe r f ect lyreadable.Idon't even kn o wR u b y y e t, and it too k me less t h ana minu te  to become  full yc omf ortable wit h th is kind o f code .  This i s n't a h uge ba rri erto " n on -exp er t s". 
~ ~~a cgo urley
Of  c ou rse i t to o k u nder  aminu te, y ou were readi nga ni c e b log p ost o n th etopic . Theprobl em  is not every i nsta nce of 'a nd'  w ill  i nclud e  thatinf orm ation.And soI  wo rr y t ha t if I drop 'and'in t o  s ome mino r glue sc ri p t I
writ e- i t be c o mes l esss el f docume ntingt omy  cowork er s. It' sa m ino r poi n t,
b ut itcan beco me as lippery slope( see: perl)

~ ~ ~K i ri n Dave 
Th is entire a rgum e nt i s mo o t.  No one c aresho w  o b scure a language lo ok s to
s omeon e who is notfamiliar w i t h  it. Doyour eg u larly sit down  anddecide, “I am going  to u se a lan guage I d o n 't knowtoacc omp lis h so mething essen t i al a nd 
immedi ate ?” Andeve n i f t hean swer is y es, then  d oyo usti ll no t  know th elan gu age  at t h e endof th at e xe rc i se? 

Thisi sa very  s im ple,  ea si ly un ders t and able an d easilyrea d able  f ea ture of 
Ruby. It's n ot  obscure,co mpl ex, or e ven that  unusual. Precedence is somethi ngevery  com petent pr ogr ammernee d s to u nderst and,an d i t shoul d be  pa rt  of everyp r ogr ammer 's  res earch t o learn a new lang u age . After all,thi s is a 
c onv e rs a tio na bou t the existence o f "and" &"o r ",  not their abu se .

~~~Robopro g
I u s ed to b e compete nt, but n ow  I g u e ssI avoid wr iting st uff thatr elies on 
_any _ k nowled ge  of  oper ator p r ece dence .

I t ry  to le arn w ha t I canof such precedence in t he lan guage  of  the day,  si n ceI will ha ve t o maintain  ot her  peop le' s  "cod e" ( c yp her ? ), bu t It ry to wri t eobv i o us  "programs" ( w hois in  th i s play , wh at are the acts?) . 

I've been at  thi s ove r 2 deca de s, and it's mu chea s i er
 have_a similar_low precedence.

~~~
acgourley
Is "this kind_of code"_worth_it? It_certainly_is aesthetically pleasing_and
somewhat terse compared_to a parenthesis jungle._But that does_outweigh_the
fact non-experts don't know exactly what the statement is doing?

~~~
sketerpot
To anyone who learns the_idiom,_this code_is_fine,_and perfectly readable. I
don't even_know Ruby yet, and it_took me_less than a minute to become fully
comfortable with_this_kind of code._This isn't a huge barrier to "non-
experts".

~~~
acgourley
Of course it_took under a minute, you were_reading a nice_blog_post_on the
topic. The problem_is not every instance of 'and'_will include that
information. And so I_worry that if I drop 'and' into_some minor glue script I
write -_it becomes less self documenting_to my_coworkers. It's a minor point,
but_it can become_a slippery_slope (see: perl)

~~~
KirinDave
This_entire argument is moot. No one_cares how obscure_a language looks to
someone who is_not_familiar with it._Do_you_regularly sit_down and decide,_“I
am_going to_use_a language I don't know to_accomplish_something essential and
immediate?” And even if the_answer is yes, then_do_you still not know_the
language at the end of_that exercise?

This is a very simple,_easily understandable_and easily_readable feature of
Ruby. It's not obscure, complex, or even that unusual._Precedence is something
every competent programmer needs_to understand, and it_should be_part_of every
programmer's research_to_learn a_new language. After all, this is a
conversation_about the_existence of "and" & "or", not_their abuse.

~~~
Roboprog
I used to_be_competent, but now I guess I_avoid writing stuff that relies on
_any__knowledge of operator precedence.

I try_to_learn_what I can of such_precedence in the language of the_day, since
I will_have to maintain other people's "code" (cypher?),_but_I try to write
obvious "programs" (who_is_in this play, what are the_acts?).

I've_been_at this over 2 decades,_and it's much easier