|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 12/17/51 11:55
Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:O4udnUk-gOCom0zZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>
>>>"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7BGzg.6578$gF6.716@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:ean53d$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
>>>
>>>
>>>And so does everybody else with a background in case insensitive
>>>languages.
>>>
>>
>>You cannot speak for "everybody else with a background in case insensitive
>>languages" - and you certainly do not speak for me. In fact, you don't
>>speak for most programmers I know with that background.
>>
>>And yes, I did start with case insensitive - FORTRAN II back in 1967, and
>>several other languages since then, including some you've probably never
>>heard of.
>>
>>
>>>>>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!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>It is possible to write mantainable code in COBOL just as it is possibe
>>>to write unmaintable code in Java. It is the programer and not the
>>>language which is the deciding factor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(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!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>That is not the case as I remember it. Each subprogram has its own
>>>working storage section, so anything declared in one subprogram cannot
>>>possibly affect anything in another subprogram. It is only when you get
>>>to shared storage areas, such as common storage or the linkage section,
>>>that you may have problems. Yet agin, as COBOL is a compiled language,
>>>anything which is actually declared more than once can be flagged as an
>>>error at compile time, so the problem is easily spotted and fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree. COBOL 85 was much, much better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Programmer conventions are still not the same as language rules, and I
>>>dislike the idea of certain conventions in some languages being promoted
>>>to rules in other languages.
>>>
>>
>>No, but programmer conventions are built around language rules, and take
>>advantage of those rules.
>
>
> I disagree. The convention of using different case to differentiate between
> constants, variables, functions and methods grew about because of a
> deficiency in the language. There was no rule in the language which made
> such a convention obligatory.
>
How do you know - by your own admission you weren't using modern
languages in the 1980's and early 1990's when most of these conventions
were standardized.
I was - and it wasn't due to any deficiency in the language. Rather it
was to take advantage of features of the language.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|