It's become a pet peeve of mine, but for the love of God, if anyone with input in Carbon is scanning this, what can be done to use "func" instead of "fn" as a keyword?

That all-consonant keyword always makes it seem like I'm reading Hungarian notation when reading Rust for instance. An other options I've seen for instance in Pony, "fun", is already an English word with a completely different meaning.

Even the "function" from Javascript seems fine to me.

▲ treyd 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

What's wrong with fn? It's perfectly understandable. I don't understand what the bikeshedding about keywords like this is about.

▲ Imustaskforhelp 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't even code in kotlin but I know that kotlin has function as fun :P

Such small things as using __ __ in python and small inconveniences (lua's 1 instead of 0) really has a lot of people, what do I say.. yea, polarized on this matter.

	▲	samuell 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		fun is the best, as it makes the function name align with the code block indented 4 characters :D `fun main() { println("Hello, world!") } ^ aligned here! \o/`
	▲	treyd 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		0 vs 1 indexing has an actual semantic difference that you have to keep in your head at ~all times, but could have a text editor plugin that rewrites func<->fn since it's purely syntactical. What is inconvenient about it?

▲ mihaic 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Keywords usually are quite pronounceable, and some of them are even proper words. How do you read fn?

	▲	nicoburns 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Usually as "function"
	▲	steveklabnik 6 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		fun
	▲	mastermage 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		fn

▲ seanw444 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I kind of appreciate fn, personally. It's nice having function declaration lines with two less unnecessary characters in their length.

▲ lvass 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use emacs' prettify-symbol mode to turn every language's function keyword into ʩ. Don't think I incurred in God's wrath just yet.

	▲	Imustaskforhelp 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why not just write it as fun, that way you are having fun while writing a function just as (God intended,[pun intended]) :P

▲ pton_xd 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How about "proc"? Too different? I don't like fn either but function is too much. Fun and func aren't great either. I'd go with proc or fn.

▲

pjmlp 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

fun, press tab, modern IDE fills in the remaing function characters.

Unfortunately we keep designing languages for people using notepad.

Nowadays my editor even writes full blocks at a time.

▲

AnimalMuppet 6 days ago | parent [-]

If "fun" and "func" are already "not great" (because, I presume, they're too long), then "fun[TAB]" is not the solution.

Mind you, I'm not saying that your solution doesn't work. Just that it doesn't work for the GP.

	▲	pjmlp 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is kind of ironic how people still get stuck discussing syntax to save keystrokes and then write a whole book on the AI chat window.

▲

flykespice 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Probs too archaic?

▲ cyber1 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"func" is fine; "function" is too long. "fn" is also good, but for example, Go was designed with "func," and it's one of the most successful, readable languages in the world, so why not?

▲ mckravchyk 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

C++ does not have a function keyword at all, I wonder why did they add it in the first place.

▲ Tuna-Fish 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The c++ notation for functions (and types in general) is horrible, and makes parsing much more expensive than it needs to be. Fixing it is step one if you are making a modern language.

	▲	pjmlp 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		A compatibility required by C.

▲ twoodfin 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To avoid any possibility of reintroducing the Most Vexing Parse?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse

▲ gpderetta 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't, but you can pretend it does:

  auto my_function(int, double) -> int;

They probably want to use the same arrow signature and need something in place of auto as omitting it completely would complicate parsing.

▲ munchler 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

F# uses “fun” and I like it. The vowel does help a bit and I never confuse it with the English word. The worst one IMHO is Haskell’s “\”.

▲ bhawks 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Since interop is such a big design goal I wonder if fn was chosen after analyzing the impact of alternative keywords present in large c++ code based that would impact interop in a negative way (eg requiring more escaping).

▲ zigzag312 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like it the most when there's no keyword. Just name() and return type.

▲ dismalaf 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pony's keywords are the best. "fun" and "be" are just, well, fun lol.

I agree, I hate fn. Also not a fan of func though.

▲ gpderetta 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In C++ you can use indifferently either the class or typename keyword to introduce template arguments (because of course you can). A lot of styleguides suggest using typename because class is slightly misleading (the type could be anything not just a class).

In practice everybody just uses class, because who as the time to type the full keyword and signature declarations in C++ are already unwieldy as it is.

▲

pjmlp 6 days ago | parent [-]

Anyone using a proper IDE instead of notepad like editor.

	▲	TinkersW 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have that and still prefer class, easier to type(not just shorter, but easier keys) and less to read. Only use typename in the rare case where it is required
	▲	gpderetta 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I do use a proper ide with with clangd completion and all kind of helper macros, but I can still type 'class' faster than I can trigger completion.

▲ flohofwoe 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Tbh, I wonder why modern languages still have a function keyword at all, e.g.:

    const add = (a: i32, b: i32): i32 => a + b;

...or any variation of the arrow-function idea...

	▲	kibwen 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's the other way around. Modern languages and grammars use explicit leading keywords to clearly indicate what sort of context they're about to parse, rather than blindly forging ahead in a superposition while waiting for some future sequence of tokens to clarify what the context is.
	▲	uncircle 6 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's hard for a naive parser (one-token lookahead, for example), to tell after parsing `const add = (` if this defines a function or a variable. A "function" keyword often exists just to help the parser. C3, for example, to simply the parser of its language that's a superset of C, adds a "fn" keyword for this very purpose of disambiguation.
	▲	popcornricecake 6 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		That looks like a variable that points to an anonymous function. For simple small functions here and there it may not matter, but if the entire call stack in a debugger is full of anonymous functions then it could be a problem.
	▲	VikingMiner 6 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		IMO it is far easier to read this: `function add(a: i32, b: i32): i32 { return a + b; }` Than the example you provided and it is approximately the same length. I used to arrow functions everywhere in TS/JS and it made it difficult to read IME, and there was zero benefit. They are find for things like event handlers, promises chains etc. But I'd rather just use function when I don't have to worry about the value of this.
	▲	klibertp 6 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You're assuming that named lambda is the same thing as a function, which often isn't true. Unless you mean that `=>` should be ambiguous depending on scope (lambda inside a function, a function in global scope)? That would also be a bit problematic, wouldn't it?
	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]