Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/11/06 01:09

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.

But the ability to understand that is obviously way beyond your limited
intelligence.

>
>>>>Talk about arrogant prick. You define the term.
>>>>
>>>>And yes, there are plenty of people whose opinions differ from mine and I
>>>>still respect them. You are not one of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I would rather go by recognized experts - like K & R, the Bjorn
>>>>>>Stroustrop, the initial designers of Java at Sun, the developers of
>>>>>>PHP, the folks who developed the XML spec, and even the majority of the
>>>>>>people who have responded on this thread. They have done a lot more
>>>>>>for programming than your unknown essayist - or you, for that matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And they all agree that case sensitivity is a good thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, wise guy. Show me any published resources which explicitly state that
>>>the ability to create different functions with the *same spelling* but
>>>*different case* is a good thing. Go on, I dare you.
>>>
>>
>>STOOPID TONY is the only one who has ever espoused that. No one else has.
>>The rest of us use case intelligently.
>
>
> WRONG! My entire argument has been that such a thing is BAD, and yoiu have
> been arguning AGAINST me from the very start. This implies that you think
> that such a thing is GOOD.
>

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.

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.

> <anip>
>
>>>>You need to read more. For instance, the Sun java developers recommend
>>>>conventions such as "Customer" for a class name and "customer" for a
>>>>variable name.
>>>
>>>
>>>But they are not different functions with the *same spelling* but
>>>*different case*
>>
>>No, and no one here (except stoopid Tony) has ever advocated doing it.
>
>
> I have never advocated doing it. Precisely the opposite in fact, I have been
> advocating AGAINST it. So you, with your constant writing of "you are wrong"
> and "you are stupid" and "it is the way things are done in modern languages"
> have been arguing FOR it.
>

You're the only one who has brought up this concept, stoopid Tony. No
one else has.

And yes, you ARE stoopid, Tony. And I doubt you have much credibility
with any of the regulars in this group.

>
>>>Besides, Those are purely recommendations among programmers, not rules
>>>enforced by the language. And nowhere does it say that the ability to
>>>create different functions with the *same spelling* but *different case*
>>>is a good thing.
>>>
>>
>>No, they are programming standards developed over two decades and used by
>>millions of programmers all over the world.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>IOW, they endorse standards which have now been around for a couple of
>>>>decades.
>>>
>>>
>>>They are *conventions* in those languages, not *standards* for all
>>>languages.
>>>
>>
>>The fact millions of programmers around the world use and agree on them
>>makes them de facto standards.
>
>
> I disagree. Different groups of programers have different standards. They
> always have done and always will. Just because *some* programmers like
> Hungarian Notation does not mean that *all* programmers have to use
> Hungarian Notation. It is a free world (at least it is supposed to be) so
> each group of programmers is free to choose its own programing conventions.
>

Of course you disagree. Because you think the only programmer in the
world who counts is Tony Marston. Talk about arrogant prick.

And of course different groups have different standards. But there are
some regarding the use of case sensitivity which are accepted as
standards by the vast majority of programmers.

But you're too stoopid to understand that. Or too close minded to
accept there might be a better way. Or both.


> If you don't like that I suggest you crawl back to your fuhrerbunker and
> await the fate of all dictators.
>

Yep, sounds like it's something you should do, Tony. You're trying to
dictate to everyone else.

>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>How many of those were exposed to different functions which had the *same
>>>spelling* but *different case* ?
>>>
>>
>>Only in stoopid Tony's world.
>
>
> Wrong! I have been arguing AGAINST that state of affairs and it is YOU who
> have been argunng FOR it.
>

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.

>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>In your opinion only - and some unknown your found on the internet. The
>>>>vast majority of people who have posted in this thread disagree with you.
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. It is only you and Shelly who seem to think that creating
>>>different functions with the *same spelling* but *different case* is a
>>>good idea.
>>>
>>
>>And you're too stoopid to go back and read what other people have said.
>
>
> I have been AGAINST the idea. You have been arguing against me, which means
> that you have been arguning FOR the idea.
>

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.

>
>>>>Ok, in the doc then, what is foo?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It depends how it is addressed - the constant foo, the variable foo, the
>>>function foo. Nobody just uses 'foo' and expects you to determine its
>>>type from its name, or the case that it was writen in.
>>>
>>
>>With standards you can tell immediately just by the name. Anyone with
>>half a brain (which leaves you out) can read it and know.
>
>
> 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.

>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>PHP does not use case to tell the difference between a function and a
>>>>>variable. Nor do most other languages. Therefore the *convention* of
>>>>>using case in such a manner is merely the practice of one small group.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, but programming standards do use it. And it is not the practice of
>>>>"one small group". It is the practice used on every programming project
>>>>in which I've been associated - either as a programmer or a project
>>>>manager.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where a language has no rules on case, where it can deal with upper case,
>>>lower case and mixed case, I find that standards which dictate a
>>>particular use of case are counter productive.
>>>
>>
>>Only in Tony's world. Thankfully that's a very small world.
>>Unfortunately, you have access to the internet so we have to put up with
>>your bullshit.
>
>
> 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.

>
>>>>>>>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.

>
>>>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.

> <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.

>
>>Only stoopid Tony has advocated that. No one else.
>>
>>Go back to your beloved COBOL, Tony. You're too stoopid to understand a
>>language like PHP.
>
>
> I understand it very well, thank you. And judging by the number of emails I
> receive which congratulate me for what I have made available to the
> community, there are plenty of people who agree with my point of view and my
> pragmatic approach.
>
> I do not expect everyone to share my point of view, or like my programming
> style, but at least I don't launch vicious attacks against others just
> because their approach is different to mine. I respect their right to be
> different just as I expect them to respect MY right to be different.
>
> You, on the other hand, show respect to nobody but yourself. What a sad
> person.
>

Sure, you go ahead and believe that. If all those people supported you,
where are they in this thread?

What did you have to do - make up all those emails yourself? They sure
didn't come from people reading this forum.

And BTW, I show respect for those who earn it. And in this newsgroup,
there are numerous people I respect. But you aren't one of them.

You're too stoopid.


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

[Back to original message]