|
|
Posted by John Dunlop on 10/30/40 11:54
Andrew DeFaria:
> [John Dunlop:]
> > [Andrew DeFaria:]
> I don't "pronounce" =, ==, and === differently either.
- 'equals', 'two equals/double equals', and
'three equals/triple equals'
- 'equals', 'equals equals', and 'equals equals
equals'
- 'is', 'is equivalent to', and 'is equivalent to
and of the same type as'
no?
if you had to recite code with =, ==, and === over the telephone, what
would you say? (the person on the other end doesn't have a copy of the
code, so you can't just say 'that funny wee mark between x and y'.)
> There's no doubt in my mind that computer languages are modeled after
> written languages else we wouldn't be using natural English words to
> denote concepts in programming languages.
i'm not disputing what computer languages are *modelled* after. i'm
not up to date enough on the history of computer languages.
i am suggesting that the *analogy* with writing shouldn't be taken too
far.
> >> Case sensitivity can be a useful and creative way to express the
> >> ideas embodied in a program.
> >
> > can't you express these ideas, whatever they are, equally well to your
> > fellow humans in a case insensitive system by following conventions?
>
> Yes but can you get noticed?!?
depends, i suppose, on what these ideas are and on the people involved.
> And, while I say that jokingly, I believe it has merit to the discussion
> at hand. A well written news story or novel will get more attention than
> a poorly written one. And it's not always a matter of popularity,
> especially with programs, however if a well written, pleasant to look
> at, easy on the eyes article is more of a joy to read then more
> comprehension will occur. Why would/should it be different for a well
> written computer program?
no doubt. but what does 'well' mean? it's a vague term which adds
little to the discussion.
--
Jock
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|