|
|
Posted by Shelly on 12/09/03 11:54
"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ean53d$rlk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Case sensitivity can lead to unmaintainable code. For example, if there is
> a variable called $foo I expect $Foo and $FOO to mean the same thing, not
> different things. The fact that they are not can lead to unexpected
> results.
You just said it here right now. It can lead to unexpected results ....for
YOU....because ...YOU...expect them to be the same when, in fact, they are
different thingsp
> Programmers who deliberately create different variables with the same name
> but different case are bad programmers, but a *proper* language (such as
> COBOL) removes the possibility for such bad programming by ignoring case
> and treating all the variables as a single variable. Any language which
IMO COBOL is the worst language I have ever seen. I have not programmed in
that language for almost thirty years. At that time it treated all
variables as globals -- talk about you UNMAINTAINABLE code!!!! (I think
they changed that somehow, but am not sure). If you happened to use the
same name in two different (were the "subroutines" called paragraphs or
procedures? -- I forget), then a change in one changed the value in the
other -- and that was not convention; it was the language itself. Ugh and
double-ugh!!!
> deliberately allows programmers to wrte unmaintainable code is a bad
Oh, I'll totally agree with that statement. That is why COBOL (at least
circa 1975) royally sucked wind.
> language. After all, that is why most modern languages do not include GOTO
> because f the problems it can cause.
Uh, in fact that is not correct. Java, C, C++ and any other I can think of
all allow the goto. It is just that good programmers don't use it. What do
we call that now? I think the word "convention" comes to mind.
Shelly
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|