|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 12/17/41 11:55
"Richard Levasseur" <richardlev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154531761.687441.45360@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Richard Levasseur" <richardlev@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154442024.001450.314880@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tony Marston wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 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".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Because then you don't have to worry about the personal convention of
>> > the programmer; it is a language enforced semantic.
>>
>> But why should the semantics of one language be enforced on all other
>> languages? That surely defeats the object of havng different languages.
>>
>
> It may, it may not. I'm very sure the purpose of a language is more
> than just having or not having case-sensitivity. But you make a good
> point. I'll go play with my case-sensitive language with standards on
> syntax and convention, you can go play with your case-insensitive
> language where you do everything else exactly the same, only without
> the support of the compiler or equiv.
>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The programmer shouldn't have to choose the "right" IDE. He should be
>> > able to choose whatever he wants. Vim is a very capable text editor (I
>> > <3 vim), but, afaik, its intellisense is non-existant.
>>
>> If a programmer deliberately chooses an IDE without inellisense then he
>> has
>> absolutely no right to complain that the lack of intellisense is causng a
>> problem.
>>
>
> Your totalitarian attitude grows tiresome.
>
> Additionally, whats the point of case insensitivity if we're going to
> rely on intellisense to automatically make the case the same as all the
> previous times?
That is a feature of a particular IDE which makes the case sensitive
features of the language totally transparent to the programmer. It makes it
impossible to reference the same token with different mixtures of case,
therefore the programmers are unware of te case sesitive nature of the
language.
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Then whats the point of being case insensitive when you're always going
>> > to write it in a case sensitive manner?
>>
>> It is perfectly acceptable to write a word in either all upper or all
>> lower
>> case, but somebody who deliberately switches case with alternate
>> characters
>> is a moron.
>>
>
> Thats not what I was saying.
>
> If you're adhering to some convention of programming - whatever it may
> be, - then what is the point of deviating from those conventions simply
> to take advantage of the case-insensitivity of the language?
Because different people have different ideas of how case should be used (as
I have identified in a previous post). But a convention is not a rule, and I
dislike the fat that a small number of programmers are taking their
paticular coding conventions and making them enforcable rules for all
languages.
> Why does it make sense to write:
>
> int myNumber;
> myNumber++
> if(mynumber > 3) { MYNUMBER += 5 }
>
> Slightly exaggerated, but this is the scenario you consider an
> advantage.
I never said it was an advantage to do that, in fact I would have sharp
words with any programmer who deiberately mixed case in that way The point
is that mixing case should not cause the program to do something unexpected.
> Realistically, what professional programmer, in their right
> mind, would write that? They wouldn't. They'd stick to some sort of
> style and keep with it, be it all UPPERCASE, CamelCase, lowercase, or
> whatnot.
>
> So whats the point of case-insensitivity if you're going to write it in
> the same case every time?
Because different programmers have different ideas on how case should be
used, and I do not like one particular convention being turned into a
requirement.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|