Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/06/06 16:23

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Vt2dnWqwNJ0IMUnZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Gertjan Klein wrote:
>>
>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ability to have 3 different functions called readfile(), readFile()
>>>>>and ReadFile() causes problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>The ability to have 3 different variables called box, Box and BOX causes
>>>>>problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or am I the only person who can see this?
>>>>
>>>>Yep, you're the only person to see it, Tony. The rest of us are more
>>>>intelligent than that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please don't speak for me (or qualify "the rest of us", next time). He
>>>is not the only one, and your disparaging comments don't make you look
>>>all that intelligent. Although I'm not as persistent in this thread as
>>>you and some others, I still largely agree with Tony that what he
>>>describes above causes more problems than it solves. Neither you nor I
>>>have any idea what the silent lurkers think.
>>>
>>
>>Gertjan,
>>
>>Fine. I really don't care what you think about me. My self esteem does
>>not depend on it. And I call stoopid asses like I see them.
>>
>>I am completely tired of this one who keeps starting this argument. He
>>does it every three or four months - check the archives. And every time
>>he twists people's words, ignores valid counter arguments and doesn't come
>>up with any facts of his own. Just a stoopid troll.
>
>
> Every time someone creates a post about case sensitve languages I reserve
> the right to answer that post. The fact that my opiion differs rom yours is
> no reason to insult me at every opportunity.
>

And every time you make a complete ass of yourself I reserve the right
to call you on it.

And I'm not insulting you. I'm calling a spade a spade. You have not
come up with any argument other than "I don't like it" or complete
bullshit such as "most programmers...".


>
>>I wouldn't say that about Tony if he came up with some valid arguments,
>>examples and had an intelligent conversation about it. But he doesn't.
>
>
> I have already documented my arguments, but you are too stupid to see them.
>

You have documented nothing. You have stated your opinion and tried to
claim it is the same as "most programmers" or other such nonsense.

You have yet to come up with a single credible argument.

>
>>>>BOX is a defined constant
>>>>Box is a class name
>>>>box is a variable name - an object of type Box
>>>
>>>
>>>Tony specifically described three *variables* called box, Box, and BOX.
>>>Not a constant, classname, and variable.
>
>
> That's the whole point. They are three variables with the same spelling but
> dfferent case. Achange in case does not make one a constant, one a variable
> and one a function. At least not in PHPP, and this *is* a PHP newsgroup.
>
>
>>A perfect example of him twisting the meaning of other people's words, or
>>ignoring them completely.
>

Yes, you are the expert at that. I NEVER claimed I would use all three
as variables. Yet you have completely ignored that.

>
> You keep twisting my words but coming up with stupid arguments of your own.
>

No, I don't need to twist your words, Tony. You do a great job of it
yourself.

>
>>As has been described many, many times in this thread. All three are used
>>in different contexts. But Tony tries to make them all one context.
>>
>>
>>>Using the same name, with different case, for related things, as you
>>>described above, is a sensible convention to do things -- in languages
>>>that can't distinguish these things in another way, and that are case
>>>sensitive. It does not mean that making a language case sensitive is a
>>>good thing in itself.
>>>
>>
>>But Tony thinks a Class is the same as a CONSTANT is the same as a
>>variable. He just can't understand they are different things.
>
>
> I did not say that. In a lot of languages (like PHP) it is possible to
> create a constant, a variable, a function, a class, a class method and a
> class property ALL WITH THE SAME NAME. How is this possible? Because each
> one is declared and referenced differently by the use of SYMBOLS not CASE.
> Thus I can create different things called 'foo' and reference each
> individual one without the possbility of error, as in:
>
> foo - constant
> $foo - variable
> foo() - function
> class foo {...}
> $object = new foo
> $object->foo() - class method
> $object>foo - class property
>
> This demonstrates that I DO NOT need to use different case to ell the
> difference between thedifferent objects.
>

No but now tell me - what is

"foo"

Is it a constant? a variable? a class name?

With case sensitivity, I know IMMEDIATELY


FOO is a constant
Foo is a class
foo is a variable

I don't need to search through the code to figure out what it is. In
fact, I don't even NEED to see the code.

>
>>>I personally (slightly, not religiously) would prefer it if a language
>>>had other means to distinguish between classes, constants, variables,
>>>etc.,
>
>
> You mean just like PHP already does? Without the use of case?
>

PHP does it just fine with case.

>
>>rather than having to rely on programmers adhering to such
>>
>>>conventions (I've seen too many that don't). This is a personal
>>>preference, to which I'm entitled, as you are to yours, obviously.
>>>Trying to make such a preference into a universal truth (as both you and
>>>Tony try to do) does not make a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>>Gertjan.
>>
>>Yes, you're entitled to your preferences. The difference is you're not
>>trying to force the rest of the world to follow your preferences.
>
>
> Neither am I. All I am saying is that I do not like people who use case
> sensitive languages trying to force case sensitivity into ALL languages.
>

Not at all. I am not trying to force case sensitivity into COBOL or
FORTRAN, for instance. Unlike you, who are trying to force case
insensitivity into already-case-sensitive languages such as PHP.

>
>>As for a language which has other means to distinguish between classes,
>>constants, variable, etc. - PHP has some of that. The '$' is used to
>>indicate variables. Personally i don't like it.
>
>
> Personally I *LOVE* it. It means that I don't have to rely on different case
> totell the difference.
>

So you would rather be forced to use an artificial construct to identify
a variable? It figures. Why not get your beloved COBOL to implement
this "feechur"?

And you wouldn't like C, C++ or Java. But I guess those languages would
be too hard for you to understand anyway, so it doesn't matter.

>
>>In the projects I work on (both paid and open source), standards are set.
>>Programmers will follow those standards, or they will not be part of the
>>project.
>>
>>I once had a highly paid programmer on a project who thought he was "too
>>good" for the project's standards. He was asked to follow them, then
>>warned by his manager. Unfortunately, he had to learn the hard way.
>>Interestingly enough, the project went better after he was let go then
>>while he was around.
>
>
> Some standards just aren't worth following. They are not examples of "the
> best there is" but "the best that we can do". I've quit jobs rather than
> work with their primitive standards. More than once.
>

And you wouldn't last on any of the projects I've been on - or those of
any other professional project manager I know. You also wouldn't last
long with any of the companies I've consulted for.

But that's OK - they don't need argumentative dinosaurs, anyway.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]