syntactical

Mostly because it would keep JavaScript from becoming the huge syntactical and idiomatic minefield that modern C++ is.

The haxe target languages aren't very different, other than some superficial syntactical and their standard libraries being somewhat different.

The improvements going on right now, though, seem mainly concerned with syntactical sugar and extra syntax.

You get increasingly less syntactical and increasingly more semantic as you go deeper in the network.

You could if your line had a syntactical construct that presented an interface, like say, a name and a parameter list.

Mathematica syntax (both the verbose form and with the various syntactical sugar) is immensely more readable to the average person than Lisp.

A key difference in Ruby is that while blocks are conceptually just another argument, they aren't part of the syntactical argument list.

Sometimes there are practical benefits to syntactical choices beyond the pleasing aesthetics.

Sure, there might be a better syntactical choice, though I'm not sure what it would be.

Also, languages with macros can add some nice syntactical sugar on top.

The fact that just about everything in Ruby is an object makes for some very interesting syntactical niceties that a child's mind can easily grasp.

With anonymous objects it breaks the syntactical uniformity of the expression.

List comprehension is pretty syntactical sugar to do similar things, but it forces you think about the "how to do" instead of "what to do".

"ops": "ok" I just wish they'll add some syntactical sugar to do without that "new Symbol()" thing and create symbols as needed like Ruby does.