|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 12/17/93 11:55
Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:44D105AB.20103@attglobal.net...
>
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>
>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Cd-dne2roPe8tFLZnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:PO-dnZ9kL4xhvFPZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>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. 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 deliberately allows programmers to wrte
>>>>>unmaintainable code is a bad language. After all, that is why most
>>>>>modern languages do not include GOTO because f the problems it can
>>>>>cause.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I can see where having $foo, $Foo and $FOO be the same thing could
>>>>be very confusing. I would never code something like that, and it would
>>>>lead to terribly unmaintainable code in a case-insensitive language. I
>>>>don't know why anyone would ever want to do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Having $foo, $Foo and $FOO which mean the same thing in a
>>>case-insensitive language does NOT lead to unmaintable code as much as it
>>>does in a case sensitive language which makes them separate things. I say
>>>his because I have worked for 25+ years with case insensitive languages
>>>and seen different case used on different projects, and it has never been
>>>a problem.
>>>
>>
>>Using different case to mean the same thing throughout your code is
>>completely moronic.
>
>
> Any programmer who deliberately changes case in a single program is an
> idiot. However, there is and never has been a univesal standard for the use
> of case. I have worked on many projects with many different teams who have
> had totally different ideas:
> (a) everything should be in lower case
> (b) everything should be in lower case except database table and column
> names
> (c) everything should be in upper case except database table and column
> names
> (d) everything should be in lower case except calls to different functions
> (e) everything which is part of the core language should be in lower case
> while everything defined by the programmer should be in upper case
> (f) everything which is part of the core language should be in upper case
> while everything defined by the programmer should be in lower case
>
I'm glad you admit someone who changes case in a single program is an
idiot. It shows you're an even bigger idiot because you fight so hard
for the ability to do it.
And yes, there are standards out there. But standards in modern
languages are typically more well defined and accepted than those in COBOL.
> How many more possibilities are there? The point is that if the lanuage is
> insensitive to case there is no reason to pick on any one of those
> conventions and make it a rule. Having a rule for the use of case does not
> serve any useful purpose, just as the EU rule on the shape of bananas does
> not serve any useful pupose. I never had any problem in reading the code
> that was written to all those eifferent conventions, and neither did anybody
> else. The only *problem* was when some officious twit would point out that a
> piece of code did not follow his personal conventions. I would always ask
> the question "What problem does it cause?" His answer would always be "None,
> but it does not follow the stadards". I would then ask him if he had any
> problem reading the code, or if the computer had any problem executing the
> code. If his response was "No" then I would inform hm that this was in fact
> a non-problem and not wort wasting any time over.
>
Standards are important. It seems you're a rogue. I've had idiots like
you on teams before - didn't want to follow standards, etc. None of
them were worth a damn as a programmer - they used the standards as an
excuse for writing poor code. But that wasn't the problem.
And none of them stayed very long on my projects.
>
>> I learned that even when I was doing case-insensitive languages such as
>>FORTRAN and PL/I. Anyone who did that was considered to be either a noob
>>or a piss-poor programmer.
>
>
> People who invent rules which serve no useful purpose other than to have a
> rule are far worse (IMHO) than the people who break those stupid rules.
>
And people stick to archaic practices just because they're too stupid or
stubborn to change to new ways of doing things. Which are you?
>
>>>>Fortunately, in a case-sensitive language such as PHP, C, Java and many
>>>>others, that's not a problem. It makes those languages much more
>>>>maintainable.
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. Having $foo, $Foo and $FOO mean different things causes more
>>>problems than it solves, as does haing different functions called
>>>readfile(), readFile() and ReadFile(). Nobody in their right minds would
>>>deliebrately write such obfuscated code, therefore the language should
>>>protect the programmer from making such a stupid mistake by being
>>>insensitive to case. Afetr all, most languages deliberetel do not incude
>>>the GOTO verb for that very same reason.
>>>
>>
>>But they are completely different things.
>
>
> 'box', 'Box' and 'BOX' are the same thing in the english language, and they
> mean the same thing in case insensitve languages. It is only case sensitive
> languages that make it an issue.
>
In COBOL, yes. And YOUR example is true in English. However, you
completely ignore cases where that isn't true (like Shelly's example).
But first of all, the world doesn't run on English. It's not even the
most widely spoken language in the world. And as has been pointed out
to you, other languages have different rules.
Why not write everything in German in lower case? Then you can be taken
as a complete idiot by Germans, also - just as you are here.
And BTW - we're not writing English. There is no word such as "fopen"
in English, for instance. We're writing PHP. Different language,
different rules.
>
>>As for your function names - often times readfile() will be a global
>>function, while readFile() would be a member of a class. Most programmers
>>I know wouldn't use ReadFile().
>
>
> That is only by programmer convention, it is not a language reqirement.
> Besides, PHP does not have such issues:
> foobar() is a function
> $foobar is a variable
> $object->foobar() is a class method
> $object-foobar is a class property
>
> PHP does not need to use different mxtures of case to provide the means to
> differentiate between those different types.
>
No, it doesn't NEED to. But it takes advantage of the ABILITY TO.
>
>>>>It's a good thing modern languages have gone beyond the arbitrary
>>>>restrictions of older languages like COBOL and FORTRAN.
>>>
>>>
>>>Since when does being insenstive to case become an arbitrary restriction?
>>>
>>
>>It means you can't have readfile() and readFile().
>
>
> But if the language IS case sensitive then you CAN. readfile(), readFile()
> and ReadFile() become totally differet functions. How confusing is that?
>
Only to you. They would be in different contexts, and therefore have
different meanings.
>
>>>>And I wouldn't say a language which allows programmers to write
>>>>unmaintainable code is a bad language.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why do most languages not allow the unstructured GOTO? Surely for
>>>clever programmers who need such a verb, the fact that it is not allowed
>>>is much more of a restriction than case insensitivity?
>>>
>>
>>Actually, most languages DO allow unstructured GOTO. It's just not used
>>much in structured languages. There are much better ways of doing it.
>
>
> But some, like PHP, do not. Even if it were intoduced I would probably avoid
> it conflicts with the idea of structured code. But the point is, even in
> those languages which provide GOTO its use is *optional* and not a
> *requirement*. The use of case started of as an option, but suddenly became
> a requirement, and THAT is what I oject to.
>
No problem. Go back to your beloved COBOL. No one is forcing you to
write PHP. And the world isn't going to change just because one stoopid
Neanderthal named Tony Marston wants it to change.
But now you're changing your argument again - because another one fell
apart. ROFLMAO!
>
>>For instance - I don't know how many LOC I've written in C and C++ - both
>>of which have the goto statement. Other than maybe when I was just
>>learning, I have never used it. Never found a need for it.
>>
>>But then according to your theory, C, C++, FORTRAN and even your beloved
>>COBOL are bad languages because they all allow GOTO in one form or
>>another.
>
>
> A language is not bad because of the options it provides. It is how those
> options are used which is the issue. It is possible to write bad code in any
> language.
>
And COBOL is bad because it doesn't allow for case sensitivity. It
doesn't allow me to mix case.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|