Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 10/17/83 11:35

Colin Fine wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Colin Fine 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Nope. That's exactly where he is. The (old) languages he's used are
>> not case sensitive, so no language should be.
>>
>> If that's not being "on the side of the past", what it?
>>
>
> So your logic is "this is how we do it now, therefore it must be better"?
> Perhaps it's not progress - perhaps it's nothing more than fashion.
>
> Nobody's given a convincing reason why case sensitivity is better. (The
> nearest to it is the stuff about the cost of doing the comparisons. That
> might have been an issue when Unix and C started up, but it's not very
> convincing today.).
>
>
> You may well be right that it will become increasingly difficult to find
> systems that aren't case insensitive. But I've yet to hear a reason why
> this is to be welcomed, while I do know a couple of reasons not to
> welcome it.
>
> Colin
>

Neither I nor anyone else needs to "give a convincing reason...". The
bottom line is - that's the way things are, and it is supported by a
vast majority of programmers.

However, there have been other reasons mentioned in this topic. But I
suspect none of them are "good enough" for you.

And I haven't heard any good reasons why NOT to welcome it. Just saying
$Foo and $fOO shouldn't point to different variables doesn't make it.
To me they ARE different variables (although I wouldn't do this myself).

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

[Back to original message]