It shaves off a few characters, but massively damages readability.
How is a new developer to make sense of this syntax? One thing ruby is really good at is "reading like English"; but this syntax appears more optimised for code golf than for human understanding.
IMO, the difference between Ruby and other languages is method calling.
Other languages can reference the method by .method_name without (), but ruby can't because Ruby doesn't need () for method call.
The .: looks like method calling ., with additional : can reference the method. That makes sense to me.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't like this syntax, at all.
It shaves off a few characters, but massively damages readability.
How is a new developer to make sense of this syntax? One thing ruby is really good at is "reading like English"; but this syntax appears more optimised for code golf than for human understanding.
In other programming languages, they have more convenient way to reference the method.
gist.github.com/americodls/20981b2...
bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13581
IMO, the difference between Ruby and other languages is method calling.
Other languages can reference the method by
.method_namewithout(), but ruby can't because Ruby doesn't need()for method call.The
.:looks like method calling., with additional:can reference the method. That makes sense to me.