Re: indirect object syntax (was Re: Revising the OO docs - take 2)

Sure, "verb noun" reads better in English. Who gives a shit? We're not writing novels and prose, we're writing math and algorithms.

noun->verb allows for significantly more powerful programming tools, e.g. object introspection and code completion inside of an editor. The problems I run into while writing code are not "does this sound good in English?" but more "I'm working on some code I haven't seen before, what the hell is this parameter's object for and what does it do?"

When your code puts the verb as the primary element like an imperative language does you can easily look at a verb but that's it. Without overloading, a single verb works on only a single specific form of object, which makes it even more worthless. Looking at all verbs that affect a particular object is much harder (especially when the verbs are used in a dynamic language where the verbs' parameters aren't tagged with object types).

Even if the verb-first is just syntactical "sugar" for noun->verb style of syntaxes -- that is, the verbs are still attached directly to the objects in the code structure -- putting the verb first just kills code completion. I type out a verb and then my editor can't do anything more to help me, other than maybe list out parameters. With the noun first, the editor can helpfully then show me all the possible verbs on that noun. Can't remember the exact spelling of the verb, or are you not entirely sure if the verb you want already exists? You better damn well hope your language puts the noun first. Otherwise, you better not mind wasting oodles of time and effort grepping source code and reading through (likely completely deficient) code documentation.