|
|
Posted by Colin Fine on 10/18/27 11:35
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.
>
> But then if they had their way we'd probably still be programming with
> switches on the front panel.
>
The unsupported assumption - or insinuation - that the other party in an
argument is somehow on the side of the past is a worthless and rather
despicable kind of argument.
Colin
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|