|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 12/23/05 15:30
tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>>>What I object to is being told that I MUST use one case or the other just to be
>>>>>*consistent* with everyone else, especially when I disagree with their
>>>>>reason for choosing one case over the other in the first place.
>>>
>>>>The majority of programmers disagree with you on this. Consistency
>>>>and conventions are preferred when working on a particular project or
>>>>platform -- it cuts down on errors and allows one to convey greater
>>>>meaning.
>>>
>>>I disagree. The majority of programmers that I have worked with on
>>>case-insensitive languages do NOT like being told that case is suddenly
>>>important, that you must use one in preference to the other. It is like
>>>saying that although the language allows you to do something either
>>>*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
>>>for no other reason than to be consistent.
>>>
>>
>>He didn't say "The majority of programmers that you have worked with on
>> > case-insensitive languages".
>>
>>He said "The majority of programmers" - a much larger group. And I have
>>to agree with him.
>>
>>I've also taught C, C++ and Java to COBOL programmers. Sure, they had
>>trouble getting used to the case sensitivity. But most got used to it.
>> Only those who refused to change didn't.
>
>
> There is a big difference between *allowing* the programmer to choose
> which case to use, and *forcing* the programmer to use a particular
> case.
>
> What I find annoying is the potential for case-sensitive languages to
> allow the same variable or function name to exist AND BE DIFFERENT
> ENTITIES. If the language could automatically correct what I typed in
> to be in the same case (or mixture of case when camelcaps are used) as
> the entity I was referring to I would have less reason to object. But
> this is only possible with statically typed languages where everything
> has to be declared up front. That doesn't work with dynamically typed
> languages, therefore introducing case-sensitivity creates more problems
> than it causes and should be avoided.
>
>
>>But then if they had their way we'd probably still be programming with
>>switches on the front panel.
>
>
> At least the switches weren't case sensitive.
>
Nobody is forcing you to choose which case to use. You can use upper
case, lower case or a mixture of cases for any of your function or
variable names.
And sure, $Foo and $fOO can be different variables. So what? THAT'S
HOW IT WORKS!
As for the language "automatically correct what I typed in"... No way.
What if I WANT $Foo and $fOO to point to different variables? Note that
I am NOT saying this is "good programming" - but sure, it's possible.
And I might at some time need that.
What you don't see is you're trying to force the rest of the world to
conform to YOUR ideas of how programming should be. Get a life - it
ain't going to happen. You're outnumbered too much.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|