|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 08/11/06 14:08
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4cqdnd_ZEKtBRUbZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZemdnXPCnJ9WUkTZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:GMSdnZdwXMU9u0TZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:eJSdnbgtMaxMEkrZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>You quote someone who no one ever heard of who posted an essay on the
>>>>>internet. And you claim this proves the majority of programmers agree
>>>>>with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Paragraph 21 of the article "How to write unmaintainable code" at
>>>>http://mindprod.com/jgloss/unmainnaming.html agrees with my point of
>>>>view. If you did a google search on that title you will see it
>>>>referenced hundreds of times, which means that many other people share
>>>>the same view.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, it does not mean other people share the same view. It means it has
>>>been referenced hundreds of times. Period.
>>
>>
>> That many peole would not reference that article if they did not agree
>> with it.
>>
>
> No, you can't say that. Many people reference articles as a way of NOT
> doing something. And even if they reference an article, they may not
> agree with the entire article - only parts of it.
If people disagreed with an article they would say so on their link. If they
link to an article *without* saying "this is rubbish" any *reasonable* human
being would take it to me hat they agree with that article.
Oh, I forget. That requires a *reasonable* human being, which disqualifies
you immediately.
<snip>
> Don't try putting words in my mouth, Tony. You're obviously not capable
> of getting any intelligent words out of your own mouth. I don't with to
> look as stoopid as you.
>
> And no, my argument has not been against making different functions with
> the same name and different case. My argument has been against the
> removal of case sensitivity from the language - which has been YOUR
> argument.
So if you have not been arguing IN FAVOUR of this idea you must be AGAINST
this idea. As I am also AGAINST this idea why have you been arguing AGAINST
me?
> Only now, when you couldn't convince anyone that your viewpoint is right
> (because it isn't), you're trying to change the argument.
>
> Typical troll behavior.
>
>> Are you now saying the opposite? Are you now saying that you agree with
>> my point of view? Please make your mind up.
>>
>
> Not at all. I have NEVER agreed with your points on case sensitivity.
> Because you're too stoopid to come up with credible arguments against it.
I have told you repeatedly why case sensitivity is a bad idea - it allows a
set of function names with the *same spelling* but *different case* to be
totally different functions. This breaks long standing naming conventions
and leads to obfusated and unmaintainable code.
>> <anip>
>
> Again, you are too stoopid to understand an intelligent conversation. I
> have never argued for using the same spelling but different case for
> function names. Again - point me to one post where I advocated it.
Here you are:
In message news:44D105AB.20103@attglobal.net you gave this response:
TM: Since when does being insenstive to case become an arbitrary
restriction?
JS: It means you can't have readfile() and readFile().
This means that you are in favour of readfile() and readFile() being
*different* functions instead of the *same* function.
In message news:nNWdnTEMvpbUmUnZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com both you and
Shelley admitted that you would both be happy working with software tha had
had different functions called readfile(), readFile() and ReadFile() - i.e.
the same spelling but different case.
In message news:V_2Bg.10122$157.5481@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net
Shelley wrote that a professional programmer <quote> would NEVER confuse
readfile(), readFile(), ReadFile() and
READFILE(). He/She would AUTOMACTICALLY assume they are different functions
that do more less the same thing but have different scopes and areas of
applicability. THERE IS NO CONFUSION </quote>
> That's where you're too stoopid to understand. I'm not arguing this point
> at all. I'm not letting you change the subject. Get back to your
> original point - you want to get rid of all case sensitivity in PHP.
>
> Stoopid Tony can't even tell when he changes the subject himself. Just
> like all trolls.
I want to remove case sensitivity because of the problems it causes. You do
not see these as *problems* but *opportunities* to create obfuscated and
unmaintainable code.
<snip>
>>
>> But what if your standards do not use case to differentiate between
>> variables and functions? What if the language itself does not use case to
>> differentiate between variables and functions?
>>
>
> Your "what if's" are immaterial. My standards DO use case to
> differentiate between variables and functions. And PHP can (to a limited
> extent anyway, with functions) differentiate.
>
> So your "what if's" are meaningless.
No, my "what if's" are perfectly valid. I have NEVER used a language where
case was necessary to differentiate between a function and a variable. I
have NEVER met a programmer in those languages who found this confusing,so
standards such as our are totally pointless and without merit. If the
language does not care about case, and the programmers don't care about
case, then introducing *conventions* on the use of case does not produce any
benefits and is therefore a waste of time.
<snip>
>>
>> What would happen if the HTTP protocol were suddenly to become case
>> sensitive? What would happen if email addresses were suddenly to become
>> case sensitive? How much aggravation would THAT cause?
>>
>
> And what if Tony Marston got a brain? Naw, chances are better for the
> universe to implode.
Answer the question. If all the current software which is case INsensitive
were to suddenly switch to being case snsitive, how many people would cry
"foul!"
>>
>>>>>>>>But it is not obligatory. With PHP (and most other languages) I can
>>>>>>>>use whatever case I like and the language will not complain for the
>>>>>>>>smple reason that it does not care. There are no *language rules*
>>>>>>>>about how to use case, only *programer conventions*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, there are not language rules. They are programming conventions
>>>>>>>(standards) developed to take advantage of the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I disagree.They are *conventions* used by one group of programmers in
>>>>>>one language which are now being forced upon other groups of
>>>>>>programmers in other languages. Different groups have different
>>>>>>conventions, different languages have different conventions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That "one group of programmers" consists of millions of programmers all
>>>>>over the world. Pretty big group.
>>
>>
>> There is NO rule which says that any group of programmers MUST adopt the
>> conventions used by another group of programmers just because that other
>> group is bigger. Each group is free to adopt or reject any conventions of
>> its own choosing.
>>
>
> No, but intelligent programmers adopt intelligent standards. Guess that's
> why you never adopted them, stoopid Tony.
And only stupid programmers adopt stupid standards. It takes intelligence to
know the difference between excellent and excrement.
>>
>>>>It still does not get away from the issue that some conventions do not
>>>>apply to *all programmers* in *all languages*. I do not see why I should
>>>>have to accept a convention from a different language that addresses a
>>>>problem that does not exist in the language that I use.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because millions of programmers agree it's a good thing. Only stoopid
>>>Tony thinks it isn't.
>>
>>
>> No. I am the one arguing AGAINST a stupid thing. You are the one arguning
>> FOR it.
>>
>
> Wrong. But you're too stoopid to understand.
Now who's stupid. If I am aguing AGAINST somehing, and you are arguing
AGAINST me, then you must be arguing IN FAVOUR of the idea that I am arguing
AGAINST.
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I find it interesting - this thread has moved from "all case" in which
>>>you couldn't come up with a valid argument, to "the same function name
>>>but using different case".
>>
>>
>> I have never argued for "all the same case". I don't care if a mixture of
>> case is used. My original argument was that I am AGAINST case senstive
>> software which allows the same word with the same spelling but different
>> case to mean a different thing. You have argued IN FAVOUR of case
>> sensitive software precisely because it DOES allow such a thing.
>>
>
> Exactly. You've tried to change your argument because no one supported
> your original premise, and you're desperately trying to find *someone* to
> agree with your stoopid ideas.
I have not changed my argument, I have simply restated the same agument in
different ways and in more detail. The topic of this thread is "case
sensitive software", and I have said why I am AGAINST the uidea because of
the problems it causes.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|