FPOC

One word: The FORCED PARENTHESISISATION OF CODE

Terrible!

program in ruby then

From Wiktionary¹:

parenthesisisation

English
__________________________________________
Etymology

parenthesisise +‎ -ation

Noun
parenthesisisation (plural parenthesisisationii)

   1. The action or result of parenthesisising.

Works cited:
¹: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parenthesization

>>1
Solution: use triple and quintuple spaces instead of opening and closing parentheses.
 *    + 2 9      7      evaluates to 77.

Use whatever punctuation symbol and non-greedy functions.
* + 2 9; 7.

Can I use curly brackets?

It's not really forced. It's just syntax. If you want a different syntax, you can always get it, or make it yourself. Of course, radically different syntax may lose its homoiconicity and thus it won't be nearly as useful and clean.

>>7
Who said anything about homoiconicity? He complained about parentheses, but didn't mention anything else. His complaint applies to C as much as it does to lisp.

>>8
C's parentheses can be optimised out by inlining ASM.

>>9
Yes, and Lisps parentheses can be optimised out by writing in brainfuck, but that doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand.

Haskell's parentheses can be optimised out by using $.

>>4
Solution: replace "(" and ")" with "[" and "]" respectively.

>>11
Ahh, Haskell. The best of Perl combined with the best of FIOC.

>>9
Yeah, but with assembly, you're forced to either put every instruction on a new line or delimit them using something like a semi-colon.

In the end, you still have to abide by the Forced Delimitation of Code.

>>14
There's no reason an assembler would need to follow that pattern, is there? It would be trivial to pick a syntax that needed no delimiters. It's just that in the real world, you'd better comment that shit anyway.

>>15
There's no reason a compiler needs to follow that pattern either. It's sort of silly to bring an argument from designing a new language into a discussion on the features of existing languages like this.

>>16
But I'm talking about assembly language.

Programming languages are defined by some rules. That's what makes them programming languages with defined syntax and semantics. While the syntax itself can be minimized to very little, some syntax is always needed, otherwise it wouldn't be a language that can be parsed or has any semantics, and as long as you have a definition(thus some rules) for the syntax, you are "forcing" something, thus you have forced paranthehises, indentation, separation of statements/expressions, semicolons, and so on. Even if a language has no "rules" per se, it would still need to have some rules for it to have semantics, and as soon as you have those, you are "forcing" something.

tl;dr: pointless complaint. Pick whichever tradeoff you like more, but you're going to have to pick something if you want to program.

>>13
Combined with `faggot`y quotes.

<-- check em dubz

<

Homoerotic languages