|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 12/17/49 11:54
"Richard Levasseur" <richardlev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154355317.632015.265480@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Richard Levasseur" <richardlev@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154281887.489543.70710@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tony Marston wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Annoying is right. The problems that this could potentially cause
>> >> seriously
>> >> outweighs any benefits (what benefits?)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tony Marston
>> >> http://www.tonymarston.net
>> >> http://www.radicore.org
>> >
>> > Benefits such as a standard meta-syntax,
>>
>> What is meta-syntax, what benefits do standards bring, and who set those
>> standards?
>>
>
> "What benefits do standards bring"...? I'm sorry, but is this a
> serious question? In addition to being anti-case-sensitive, are you
> also anti-standards?
I mean "standard meta-syntax".
>> > so we don't have to rely on intelli-sense,
>>
>> What's wrong with intellisense? If it is built into an IDE which detects
>> what you have keyed in and automatically adjusts the case to match the
>> previous declaration then surely by not using it you are exposing youself
>> to
>> the problems brought about by using a case-sensitive system. Surely this
>> simply demonstrates that case-sensitivity is a problem and not a
>> solution.
>>
>
> I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. With untyped languages,
> though, intellisense loses some of its value. Not every IDE has
> intellisense, either, and quality varies between them.
Then it's up to the programmer to choose the right IDE. If some insist on
using siple text editors without intellisense then that is their problem,
not mine.
>> > constantly refer back to the declaration and documentation,
>>
>> If the system is not case-sensitive then he possibility of having
>> multiple
>> declarations of the same thing in different case would not be a problem.
>>
>> > or some smart ass who LiKEs To ALTerN4t3 c4ps and
>> > condense everything into as few lines as possible.
>>
>> Any moron who deliberately uses mixed case to cause confusion deserves
>> nothing more than a poke in the eye with a pointed stick. But if the
>> language was not sensitive to case then it would not be a problem in the
>> first place, now would it?
>>
>
> Yes, it would still be a problem. That same moron can still do a
> plethora of other things to make the code harder to read and
> understand. If they're going to write obscufucated code, then whether
> or not the language is case sensitive or not is irrelevent. In fact, I
> would say it works to their advantage because now they can write it
> differently everytime. Is it really that hard to distinguish
> hiTh3RetWoU from hiTh3reTwoU? Not particularly, but its extra work I
> shouldn't have to worry about and can be easily eliminated.
I am not interested in how many other ways there are of writing obfuscated
code. I am only concerned with the issue of case sensitivity.
>> > After all, we should strive for code that is as self-documenting as
>> > possible.
>>
>> What has case-sensitivity got to do with self-documenting code? I have
>> been
>> writing self-documenting code for 25+ years using case-insensitive
>> languages
>> without any problems.
>>
>
> Because, as one of the benefits of case-insensitivity, you say that
> thisTHING and thisThing are the same, so one doesn't need to worry
> about how one writes it, implying and supporting that one *should*
> alternate how it is written, which is not conductive towards readable
> and self documenting code.
The fact that the system ignores case does not mean that it is obligatory to
use mixed case as much as possible. Any programmer on my team who does such
a thing will not be on my team for long.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|