|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 08/04/06 13:49
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RIGdnW6rU-wXbUzZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.
Wrong again. I am most defintely NOT fighting for the right to deiberately
use the same spelling but different case to produce different objects. I am
saying that where the spelling is the same but the case is different they
should e treated as the SAME object. It is YOU who wants the ability for
different case to crate different objects.
> And yes, there are standards out there. But standards in modern languages
> are typically more well defined and accepted than those in COBOL.
There are standards which are requirements of a particular language, and
standards which are simply the conventions and personal choices of one group
of programmers. I do not like the personal choices of one group of
programmers being turned into "standards" which are then forced upon all
prgrammers. I am big enouh (and ugly enough) to make my own choices, and I
choose to dislike the problems that case sensitve software causes.
>> 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.
There is no such thing as a universal set of standards, and there never will
be. I've worked on many different projects with many different teams, and
the variety of diferent "standards" I have seen has been truly amazing. The
only common feature I can recall in all these different standards is that
they are littered with "do it this way" without explaining the reason why,
or giving any jusification. With standards such as these it is often
different to write good code AND fllow the standards. The two usually end up
being mutually exclusive.
Your idea of "standards" would probably make me vomit.
>>
>>> 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?
I have seen the problems that case sensitive languages cause, and I have
seen the coplete absence of these problems in case insensitive languages. I
prefer the languages which have the ability to cause fewer problems. If that
is your definition of "stupid" then you have a real problem.
>>>>>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?
I am not advocating for all human languages to be caseless. Stop creating
pointless arguments.
> 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.
And you agree that the ability to have functions such as readfile(),
readFile() and ReadFile() is a GOOD THING? Are you KIDDING?
>>>>>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.
Hands up all those programmers who would be happy working on a project which
had different functions called readfile(), readFile() and ReadFile()
>>>>>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!
No, I'm not changing my argument. I still think case senstive languages
suck, and I always will. Having case sensitivity never solved any problems,
it only created them.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|