|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 10/15/03 11:36
"Anonymous" <anonymous@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43AE9D06.62D24AE3@nowhere.invalid...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried
>> > to
>> > tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
>> > arguments.
>>
>> Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
>> always been this way" is not an argument.
>
> I can agree with that, but...
>
>> > The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
>> > instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you
>> > can
>> > compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking
>> > apples
>> > and oranges.
>>
>> Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
>> communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
>> high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and
>> computer
>> languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they
>> are
>> like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.
>
> ... now you are getting ridiculous. Human languages and computer
> languages might share the same origin, but they du not share the same
> purpose.
Yes they do, it's called *communication*. A computer language is used so
that a human can tell a computer what instructions to follow. That is why
COBOL was constructed around subjects, verbs, predicates, sentences and
paragraphs.
> Human languages developed over time.
Having been in IT for over 30 years I have noticed that computer languages
and operating systems evolve over time as well.
> Words changed meanings and
> spelling, the grammar changed, too. On top of that humans communicate
> differently than machines. We have a lot of words that communicate
> vagueness or uncertainty. How much is 'a lot of'?
>
> Computer languages on the other hand were designed from the bottom up
> and their only purpose is to eliminate any vagueness in communication so
> that a machine that only knows logical states (0 or 1) can follow a set
> of instructions in a concise and repeatable way.
>
> That is why computer and human languages are *very* different. If it
> were not so nobody would need programmers.
You would still need a method of allowing a human to communicate his wishes
to the computer.
>> The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
>> languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that
>> had
>> existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
>> that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
>> reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to
>> perform
>> case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
>
> Complete nonsense. The first computer languages were case insensitive
> because the first computers only had upper case letters. Human languages
> on the other hand never were case insensitive.
But when those early computers changed to character sets which allowed both
upper and lower case they did not enforce one case or the other, thus
becoming case-insensitive. How do I know this? BECAUSE I WAS THERE, DUMMY!
>> I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I
>> am
>> just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for
>> 30
>> years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL
>> case-insensitive,
>> and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
>>
>
> Don't make me laugh. I've been into computers for only about 22 years,
> but I know computers like C64, VIC20 and PET and know why they were case
> insensitive. Simply because they lacked lower case.
My experience is with *business* computers, not *hobby* computers. Before
personal computers (known originally as micro-computers) came out I worked
on mainframes and mini-computers, all of which had both upper and lower case
and were insensitive to case.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|