473,322 Members | 1,719 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,322 software developers and data experts.

Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

If you have any PHP scripts which will not work in the current releases
due to breaks in backwards compatibility then take a look at
http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql...verything.html and see if
you agree with my opinion or not.

Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net

Dec 20 '05
150 6287
>> You are talking about the *contents* of variables, whereas I am talking
about the *names* of variables. There is a BIG difference between the
two.
Umm, no I'm not. All languages are written in English and ASCII.
Java, for example, is written in Unicode (UTF-8).


It does not matter what character set any language or tool is written
in, it can easily perform case insensitive searches. Introducing
case-sensitivty is an entirely artificial and (IMHO) unnecessary
restriction.

Dec 22 '05 #51
>> No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?
Many many years ago it was done for compiler performance reasons. It
does require lots of extra cycles to lower-case every single
identifier in a large C application.
On all the hardware I have worked on for the past 30 years the extra
processing cycles for performng case-insensitive searches was never
deemed to be significant. Certainly not important enough to remove the
ability for case-insensitive searches.

If it was done in the C compiler then I can only surmise that the C
compiler was written by idiots.
Might seem like a poor reason now, but as a COBOL/Mainframe programmer
should appreciate it -- It was only 2 extra bytes to store the entire
year but somebody decided that was too much.


Back in those days it was the enormous cost of data storage that made
people store years in 2 bytes instead of 4. But nobody even thought of
reducing processing cycles by eliminating case-insensitive searches as
the loss of that functionality was deemed too great.

Dec 22 '05 #52
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
I disagree. I have worked for decades with case-insensitive languages
and I have always treated $FOO and $foo as the same variable.


But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO!

Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
the unemployment queue.

People have no
trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
those have different meanings,

Not to me, they don't. When writing a program I am writing in a
language that a computer understands, so I have to *think* like a
computer. To a computer the case of a word is irrelevant, and so is
it's pronunciation.

to a case-insensitive compiler they are
the same.

And to a person who has been using case-insensitive compilers for 30
years they are the same.


Sorry, Tony, this last statement is incorrect.

I first learned Fortran back in the 60's. Much more than 30 years ago.

Yet when I converted to one of the more modern languages (C in my case)
I didn't have any trouble getting used to the case sensitivity. Sure,
at first it was awkward. But not any more.

Since then I've also gotten into C++, Java, JavaScript and PHP, among
other languages. All are case sensitive. And I have no problems with
them. And I still do some Fortran and a couple of other non-case
sensitive languages.

So - as a person who has been using case-insensitive compilers for over
30 years, they are NOT the same.

Hey - get over it. It's called progress. Someone earlier pointed out -
in the 60's everything was upper case because punch cards only handled
upper case. I'll add that most printers only had upper case chars on
their chains. But we don't have that artificial limitation any more.
And case sensitivity can make programs more readable, if used properly.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 22 '05 #53
to**@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.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 22 '05 #54
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
That is what I have been used to for decades, and I see absolutely no
advantage in being forced to switch.


So you're main argument is that it's not what you're used to -- so it
should be changed. Isn't that the attitude that your entire article
was arguing against??

So why should I have to change MY programming habits just to match YOUR
programming habits? Who put you in charge?


You don't have to change your programming habits to match my programming
habits. You do, however, need to match the requirements of the language.

In PHP, for instance, you don't have an IDENTIFICATION-DIVISION (Cobol)
nor a FORMAT statement (Fortran).

Don't like it? Don't use it. But don't expect the rest of the world to
change just because YOU don't like it. Nobody put you in charge!

Or, create your own language which is case insensitive, build
compilers/interpreters needed to use it, and get people to use it. Then
you will be in charge, and can make the rules.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 22 '05 #55
Jerry Stuckle said the following on 22/12/2005 16:38:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:

<SNIP ARGUMENTS FOR CASE-INSENSITIVITY>

<SNIP ARGUMENTS FOR CASE-SENSITIVITY>
I think the issue of case sensitivity/insensitivity is one where
everyone just has to agree to disagree. It's one of those issues that
everyone prefers what they're used to, and there's no fundamental
arguments either way, just like for indent style.

Personally, I prefer the consistency that case-sensitivity imposes, but
that's probably because I spend most of my time using case-sensitive
languages. Whenever I see HTML, PHP or whatever where there's
inconsistency within the same file, then I immediately assume that the
author is lazy or sloppy, but again, that's probably down to what I'm
used to.
--
Oli
Dec 22 '05 #56
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
My point is that for 30 years I have worked with tools which were
totally insensitive to case, but some morons seem to think that case >> is important.
I guess C, C++, and UNIX are not particularly popular.


They may be popular in some circles, but I have never travelled in
those circles.


That's pretty dumb. That's like saying, "Fords are not popular cars
because I never drive them." Whether you like it or not, current
programming is dominated by C and C derivatives.
For God's sake WHY! What problem existed in the
case-insensitive world that needed to be fixed?

Ask Dennis Ritchie.


No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?


I don't know, and don't really care. It's a pretty pointless
discussion. Languages that are case sensitive are not going to change
because a minority of programmers dislikes that feature.
Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
Dec 22 '05 #57
On 22 Dec 2005 08:05:57 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
By introducing case-sensitivity you are suddenly saying that $FOO and
$foo are now different, which goes against the grain of everything that
I have been taught since my first day at school way back in the last
century.

A common Java idiom is:

Foo foo = new Foo();

The convention in Java is that class names begin with an upper-case
letter and variables begin


Who gives a toss about how java does it? This is a PHP topic.


You're the one talking about case-insensitive languages! I toss a
case-sensitive language in and you get all touchy.

Dec 22 '05 #58
On 22 Dec 2005 07:54:07 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO!
Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
the unemployment queue.


So then, why should the programming language allow it?!?
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.
Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.
Either case isn't important and programmers can mix case at will or
case is importantant. Give me one good reason why the language should
not enforce solid industry practices and keep poor unknowning
programmers out of the unemployment queue?
*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
for no other reason than to be consistent.
You just argued for that consistency in the first line of your post.
People have no
trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
those have different meanings,


Not to me, they don't.


So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?
And to a person who has been using case-insensitive compilers for 30
years they are the same.


Sadly, you're in the minority. Majority rules.

Dec 22 '05 #59
On 22 Dec 2005 08:08:53 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Your second statement contradicts the first, but at last you agree that
having $FOO and $foo point to different things is not a good thing.

It's not exactly a contradiction... I wouldn't allow both $foo and
$FOO in the same program. In a case-insentive language that's
allowed. I would want that completely disallowed.


So you are forcing your personal preferences upon everyone else. That
sucks.


No, I'd be making the language safer by disallowing stupid mistakes
and inconsistency.

Do you actually have an argument for the alternative or is it all just
personal perferences for you?

Dec 22 '05 #60
>> >> For God's sake WHY! What problem existed in the
>> case-insensitive world that needed to be fixed?
From my point of view, the case-sensitive world existed
first.
> Ask Dennis Ritchie.
No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?


What problem existed in the case-sensitive world that could only be
solved by introducing case-insensitivity?
I don't know, and don't really care. It's a pretty pointless
discussion. Languages that are case sensitive are not going to change
because a minority of programmers dislikes that feature.


Ok, here's one problem that case-insensitivity has that case-sensitivity
doesn't: determine whether or not two characters are the same
(except possibly for case) for all characters in ISO 10646, on a
machine with a 64k address space. Do all countries even AGREE on
what character codes correspond to 'a' except for case? It would
be VERY BAD for two variable names to represent the same variable
in some countries and not in others. How often will it be necessary
for this software to be updated? (Of course, C wimps out on this
by not allowing most of those characters in variable names anyway.)

Gordon L. Burditt
Dec 22 '05 #61
Oli Filth wrote:
I think the issue of case sensitivity/insensitivity is one where
everyone just has to agree to disagree. It's one of those issues that
everyone prefers what they're used to, and there's no fundamental
arguments either way, just like for indent style.


Agreeing to disagree isn't a terribly good solution here, as it's a
zero-sum game. Case-sensitivity precludes using identifiers in
different cases to refer to the same thing, while case-insensitivity
makes it impossible to use identifiers in different cases to refer to
different things. Since I do neither, I don't feel strongly one way or
the other. If we forgo the "4 out of 5 dentists prefer..." style of
arguments though and look at the what each system allows, I think we
can come to some kind of a conclusion.

Case-sensitivity let you use identical tokens spelled in different
cases to refer to different things. I don't think I have heard a single
argument in favor of this practice, aside from an "oh, the Java folks
are doing it." Capitalization is a device usually used for emphasis and
conveying emotion. It's a poor choice for as a signifier, as it's not
easy to see in print and cannot be communicated at all vocally.

Case-insensitivity let you use identical tokens in different cases to
refer to the same thing. Is there any practical use of this? As I said,
capitalization is a device usually used for emphasis and conveying
emotion. A programmer could potentially use it to draw attention to
particular places in the code. For instance, I could see a convention
whereby a variable name is capitalized when its value is being altered.
Not a usage I'd promote, but intriguing nonetheless.

Thus, I would say that a case-insensitive language is marginally more
useful.

Dec 23 '05 #62
Oli Filth wrote:
In the 21st Century, where programming is as much about team-based
development and code maintenance planning as it is about knocking out
lines of code, aesthetics *are* massively important, IMO. Code that's
more consistent and easier to read is easier to understand, and easier
to hand over to another team member.
Put two fellows in a room thinking aesthetics are massively important
and you will see how productive that is. Office politics is detrimental
as it is. The last thing I would want to do is to inject more
subjective issues into the mix. Tolerance for different approaches and
the acceptance that different people think differently are what makes a
productive team.

As I said before, computer languages are not unlike human languages.
Speak in a straight forward manner and to the point--you will be
understood. It's not that hard. Pepper your speech with the latest
buzzwards and citations then neither the computer or your colleagues
will understand you.
It's not a matter of trying to "convert" people, no-one's going to go
"oh, I've seen the light, PHP is better than C++, what have I been doing
all these years". But a large user-base (and incoming users with skills
and techniques from a different language) will benefit the PHP community
and existing users. A more focused language with better OO support and
less inconsistency will benefit existing users doing new development.

Umm, if you were trying to sell a product and there was an untapped
market, of course you would try to make future versions of your product
more attractive to them. Now obviously, PHP isn't being made for money,
but the developers probably have much the same goals as if they were
indeed selling it.
Your logic doesn't quite follow there. If these programmers of yours,
those who are laughing at PHP as we speak, if they don't see that it is
better than what they're currently using, then where do you find these
experienced warm bodies to swell the user-base?

A community of programmers who is strongly attached to the
characteristics of a particular language (so much so that they laugh at
languages that don't have them) is a very tapped market I would say.
Personally, I can't see why hosts can't run both 4 and 5, and keep
everyone happy.
Because you can't, at least not in Apache.
It's not necessarily about ignorance about individual issues. Being a
good programmer/software designer is about being able to take a top-down
view and work out, a priori, why certain approaches are better/more
applicable than others, rather than having to be told on a case by case
basis.
Engineering as a discipline is largely based on a posteriori knowledge.

We all know that there are sound reasons behind most "good practice"
paradigms.
Not really. There are genuine good practices that make your life
easier, and there are persuasions by vain individuals trying to get you
to do things their way.
If someone's new to OO, for instance


And why is he "new to OO?" It is a mystery isn't it? Here we have an
individual trying to write a script that does something. Out of blue he
suddenly thinks that OO is the way--then proceed to get it completely
wrong. What was going on in his head? Why did he choose OO when he
doesn't actually know it? And what is compelling the poor guy to
persist in this futile exercise? You would think, after trying
unsuccessfully to loop through an object, he would wisen up and use a
real array instead. Hmmm...

Dec 23 '05 #63

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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.


There is a big difference between *allowing* the programmer to choose
which case to use, and *forcing* the programmer to use a particular
case.

What I find annoying is the potential for case-sensitive languages to
allow the same variable or function name to exist AND BE DIFFERENT
ENTITIES. If the language could automatically correct what I typed in
to be in the same case (or mixture of case when camelcaps are used) as
the entity I was referring to I would have less reason to object. But
this is only possible with statically typed languages where everything
has to be declared up front. That doesn't work with dynamically typed
languages, therefore introducing case-sensitivity creates more problems
than it causes and should be avoided.
But then if they had their way we'd probably still be programming with
switches on the front panel.


At least the switches weren't case sensitive.

Dec 23 '05 #64

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
So why should I have to change MY programming habits just to match YOUR
programming habits? Who put you in charge?


You don't have to change your programming habits to match my programming
habits. You do, however, need to match the requirements of the language.


The current requirement of PHP is that only variable names are
case-sensitive. What I am doing is arguing against the proposal that
function names also be made case-sensitive for no other reason than "to
bring it into line with other languages".

I will never, ever agree that case matters. It was only introduced in
the first place because those stupid unix programmers didn't know any
better. Bungling amateurs!

Dec 23 '05 #65

Wayne wrote:
On 22 Dec 2005 07:54:07 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO!
Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
the unemployment queue.


So then, why should the programming language allow it?!?
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.


Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.


What I'm saying is that some teams like their variable names in all
upper case, while others like them all lower case. Either is
acceptable, but mixing case in the same variable name is frowned upon
by both camps.
Either case isn't important and programmers can mix case at will or
case is importantant. Give me one good reason why the language should
not enforce solid industry practices and keep poor unknowning
programmers out of the unemployment queue?
*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
for no other reason than to be consistent.


You just argued for that consistency in the first line of your post.
People have no
trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
those have different meanings,


Not to me, they don't.


So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?


The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
upper or lower case. Any language that deliberately allowed the same
function name to do different things just because of a change in case
would be rejected by most programmers. I am fighting AGAINST
introducing case-sensitivity for the simple reason that it would allow
that situation to happen.

Dec 23 '05 #66

Default User wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
> For God's sake WHY! What problem existed in the
> case-insensitive world that needed to be fixed?

Ask Dennis Ritchie.


No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?


I don't know, and don't really care. It's a pretty pointless
discussion. Languages that are case sensitive are not going to change
because a minority of programmers dislikes that feature.


But why should a language which currently has case-insensitive function
names be forced to change? Especially when this would allow the
potentially confusing and dangerous situtation where the same function
name could be declared more than once with different mixtures of case,
thereby creating totally different functions. Are you saying this would
be a good idea? It appears that you are.

Dec 23 '05 #67

Wayne wrote:
On 22 Dec 2005 08:08:53 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
So you are forcing your personal preferences upon everyone else. That
sucks.


No, I'd be making the language safer by disallowing stupid mistakes
and inconsistency.


You would allow a situation where the SAME function name could be
declared in different places with different mixtures of case, thereby
creating DIFFERENT functions, and you call this SAFER? What planet do
you live on?

Dec 23 '05 #68

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>> For God's sake WHY! What problem existed in the
>> case-insensitive world that needed to be fixed?
From my point of view, the case-sensitive world existed
first.


I disagree. The first computers allowed nothing but upper case, but
when lower case became available neither the operating systems nor the
compilers cared which case was used because they were totally
insensitive. None of the mainframe, mini or micro computers that I have
ever worked on has been case-sensitive.
> Ask Dennis Ritchie.

No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?
What problem existed in the case-sensitive world that could only be
solved by introducing case-insensitivity?


Your question is rubbish as computers were case-insensitive to begin
with. Case sensitivity only arose because of a stupid mistake by those
bungling unix programmers.
I don't know, and don't really care. It's a pretty pointless
discussion. Languages that are case sensitive are not going to change
because a minority of programmers dislikes that feature.


Ok, here's one problem that case-insensitivity has that case-sensitivity
doesn't: determine whether or not two characters are the same
(except possibly for case) for all characters in ISO 10646, on a
machine with a 64k address space. Do all countries even AGREE on
what character codes correspond to 'a' except for case? It would
be VERY BAD for two variable names to represent the same variable
in some countries and not in others. How often will it be necessary
for this software to be updated? (Of course, C wimps out on this
by not allowing most of those characters in variable names anyway.)


I am not talking about any character string that can be entered by any
user in any language, I am talking about what the language will allow
for function names and variable names. I think you will find this to be
more restrictive, therefore less of a problem when case-insensitive
matching is required.

Dec 23 '05 #69
<to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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.


There is a big difference between *allowing* the programmer to choose
which case to use, and *forcing* the programmer to use a particular
case.

What I find annoying is the potential for case-sensitive languages to
allow the same variable or function name to exist AND BE DIFFERENT
ENTITIES.


But it's not the same variable or function name, it's different!! If I had
variables $foo and $FOO, the other would be 0x66 0x6F 0x6F as ascii codes,
the other 0x46 0x4F 0x4F. Those aren't the same.

In some spoken languages there are no upper and lower case, japanese for
instance. In such a language it really doesn't matter which case you want to
use, because there is no upper or lower.

If you've ever studied physics, you might've noticed how symbols are used in
equations all the time. In that case, small and uppercase is everything.
it's hell of a difference to write E=mc^2 than e=MC^2. The other is the
Einsteins most famous equation Energy = mass * speed of light to second
power, and the other is just non-sense, Napier's constant = mass of earth *
capacitance to second power, or something like that.

In physics upper- and lower case symbols have totally different meanings.
This is not directly applicable to php, but the world of physics with all
the symbols and equations is a language that is globally understood
regardless of it being case-sensitive. I don't expect to convince you that
php should be case-sensitive, all I'm saying is that physics as well as
mathematics sets an example of a case-sensitive language that really works.
And it's been that way for quite a long time now, the history of math goes
way back, thousands of years, before programming was even a concept.

--
"En ole paha ihminen, mutta omenat ovat elinkeinoni." -Perttu Sirviö
an*******************@gmail.com.NOSPAM.invalid
Dec 23 '05 #70
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Wayne wrote:
On 22 Dec 2005 07:54:07 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:

But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO!

Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
the unemployment queue.


So then, why should the programming language allow it?!?

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.


Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.

What I'm saying is that some teams like their variable names in all
upper case, while others like them all lower case. Either is
acceptable, but mixing case in the same variable name is frowned upon
by both camps.

Either case isn't important and programmers can mix case at will or
case is importantant. Give me one good reason why the language should
not enforce solid industry practices and keep poor unknowning
programmers out of the unemployment queue?

*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
for no other reason than to be consistent.


You just argued for that consistency in the first line of your post.

People have no
trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
those have different meanings,

Not to me, they don't.


So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?

The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
upper or lower case. Any language that deliberately allowed the same
function name to do different things just because of a change in case
would be rejected by most programmers. I am fighting AGAINST
introducing case-sensitivity for the simple reason that it would allow
that situation to happen.


Tony,

You're fighting a war you've already lost. As others have said - the
majority of programmers disagree with you. Most of the newer languages
are case sensitive. And this is not going to change.

I'd suggest you move on with your life. You are not going to win any
converts to your antiquated thoughts here.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 23 '05 #71
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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.

There is a big difference between *allowing* the programmer to choose
which case to use, and *forcing* the programmer to use a particular
case.

What I find annoying is the potential for case-sensitive languages to
allow the same variable or function name to exist AND BE DIFFERENT
ENTITIES. If the language could automatically correct what I typed in
to be in the same case (or mixture of case when camelcaps are used) as
the entity I was referring to I would have less reason to object. But
this is only possible with statically typed languages where everything
has to be declared up front. That doesn't work with dynamically typed
languages, therefore introducing case-sensitivity creates more problems
than it causes and should be avoided.

But then if they had their way we'd probably still be programming with
switches on the front panel.

At least the switches weren't case sensitive.


Nobody is forcing you to choose which case to use. You can use upper
case, lower case or a mixture of cases for any of your function or
variable names.

And sure, $Foo and $fOO can be different variables. So what? THAT'S
HOW IT WORKS!

As for the language "automatically correct what I typed in"... No way.
What if I WANT $Foo and $fOO to point to different variables? Note that
I am NOT saying this is "good programming" - but sure, it's possible.
And I might at some time need that.

What you don't see is you're trying to force the rest of the world to
conform to YOUR ideas of how programming should be. Get a life - it
ain't going to happen. You're outnumbered too much.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 23 '05 #72
Chung Leong said the following on 23/12/2005 03:27:
Oli Filth wrote:
I think the issue of case sensitivity/insensitivity is one where
everyone just has to agree to disagree. It's one of those issues that
everyone prefers what they're used to, and there's no fundamental
arguments either way, just like for indent style.

Agreeing to disagree isn't a terribly good solution here, as it's a
zero-sum game.


Much in the same way as it is for indentation style. In this case, there
are differences, but the arguments presented aren't very convincing
either way. It's not an argument that anyone's going to win, is it? So
it's almost a waste of time even talking about it.

(However, I will say that PHP as it stands is a bit retarded, having
case-sensitive variable names, but case-insensitive function names. How
does that help anyone??)

Case-sensitivity let you use identical tokens spelled in different
cases to refer to different things. I don't think I have heard a single
argument in favor of this practice, aside from an "oh, the Java folks
are doing it." Capitalization is a device usually used for emphasis and
conveying emotion. It's a poor choice for as a signifier, as it's not
easy to see in print and cannot be communicated at all vocally.


Although I just said arguing about it is pointless, I will interject
here anyway!

Kimmo made a good point elsewhere that capitalisation is used all the
time in maths equations. A lot of what I do is maths-based, and base my
code variable names on the variable names in the equation,
capitalisation and all. e.g. if the maths is:

N
F[k] = Sum (f[n].g[k])
n=1

i.e. the sum from 1 to N of f[n].g[k], I'll do:

for (int n = 1; n <= N; ++n)
{
F[k] += f[n] * g[k];
}

i.e. using both n and N (and f and F) to refer to different things. If
one knows the maths that the code is implementing (if one didn't, then
there'd be no point trying to read/debug/maintain the code), then one
would know exactly what these variables meant.

--
Oli
Dec 23 '05 #73
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
So why should I have to change MY programming habits just to match YOUR
programming habits? Who put you in charge?


You don't have to change your programming habits to match my programming
habits. You do, however, need to match the requirements of the language.

The current requirement of PHP is that only variable names are
case-sensitive. What I am doing is arguing against the proposal that
function names also be made case-sensitive for no other reason than "to
bring it into line with other languages".

I will never, ever agree that case matters. It was only introduced in
the first place because those stupid unix programmers didn't know any
better. Bungling amateurs!


Then create your own language.

And no, it was NOT "introduce in the first place because those stupid
unix programmers didn't know any better". They knew what they were
doing, and had a lot more experience than you did. They were also able
to create a language, compiler and operating system - all of which are
amongst the most popular around even today. "Bungling amateurs"? I
think not.

You go ahead and do the same. Then you can create a case-insensitive
language.

But don't expect it it to be widely accepted.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 23 '05 #74
On 23 Dec 2005 01:15:37 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Wayne wrote:
Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.


What I'm saying is that some teams like their variable names in all
upper case, while others like them all lower case. Either is
acceptable, but mixing case in the same variable name is frowned upon
by both camps.


Ok. But that was my point. What's the point of having
case-insensitivity if mixing cases is frowned upon. Clearly you only
want to one case spelling of a function or variable to be valid.
>> People have no
>> trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
>> difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>> those have different meanings,
>
>Not to me, they don't.


So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?


The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
upper or lower case.


You didn't answer my question! -5 points for you!

Saying that the programmer must go find the original declared version
of the function to determine what it does, doesn't answer the
question.

Dec 23 '05 #75
On 23 Dec 2005 01:04:06 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
You don't have to change your programming habits to match my programming
habits. You do, however, need to match the requirements of the language.
The current requirement of PHP is that only variable names are
case-sensitive. What I am doing is arguing against the proposal that
function names also be made case-sensitive for no other reason than "to
bring it into line with other languages".


Do you know why PHP functions are case-insensitive in the first place?
The original reason was because HTML tags were case-insensitive they
decided to also make PHP functions case-insensitive because it was
common (back in the day) to call PHP functions like tags <B><?php
somefunction() ?></B>

But guess what, in XHTML (and XML) tags are now case-sensitive too!
So even the original reason for PHP case-insensitive functions is now
gone.
I will never, ever agree that case matters.


For the next 100 years, you're going to be really disappointed. Every
modern programming language of any consequence is case-sensitive. You
might not like it, but you're going to have to live with it.

Dec 23 '05 #76
Kimmo Laine wrote:
<to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

There is a big difference between *allowing* the programmer to choose
which case to use, and *forcing* the programmer to use a particular
case.

What I find annoying is the potential for case-sensitive languages to
allow the same variable or function name to exist AND BE DIFFERENT
ENTITIES.

But it's not the same variable or function name, it's different!! If I had
variables $foo and $FOO, the other would be 0x66 0x6F 0x6F as ascii codes,
the other 0x46 0x4F 0x4F. Those aren't the same.

This is proof by blatant assertion.
That it what you are trying to establish, and what Tony is challenging.
In some spoken languages there are no upper and lower case, japanese for
instance. In such a language it really doesn't matter which case you want to
use, because there is no upper or lower.
In no spoken language is there upper and lower case. Case is an aspect
of (some) writing systems, not languages.

I don't think that my point is nitpicking, for the following reason:

Consider dictating a command, or some lines of a program, to somebody
over the telephone (a fairly frequent activity in my software support
job). You can dictate every individual character, but when there are
words or number you usually don't have to - you can say "minus product"
and most users will know to type "-product".
But when they are using a case-sensitive system, this is not enough. You
(may) have to say "minus product in capitals" or "minus product with
capital p".
I'm not talking particularly the inconvenience and possibility for error
in this (though they are there) - after all, there's nothing to stop me
saying "minus capital-p little-r little o ..." etc.
What I'm doing is supporting Tony's contention that to people "PRODUCT",
"product" and "Product" are the same thing.

As I said in a previous post, I have long thought that case sensitivity
was an utterly bad idea. In the case of PHP I nevertheless felt that
PHP5 marked a step forward over PHP4, but Tony has changed my mind.
The one place where it has improved things (that I can now say
class MyClass
....
if get_class($var, 'MyClass') ...
and have it work)
is not enough to justify the change.
If you've ever studied physics, you might've noticed how symbols are used in
equations all the time. In that case, small and uppercase is everything.
it's hell of a difference to write E=mc^2 than e=MC^2. The other is the
Einsteins most famous equation Energy = mass * speed of light to second
power, and the other is just non-sense, Napier's constant = mass of earth *
capacitance to second power, or something like that.

In physics upper- and lower case symbols have totally different meanings.
This is not directly applicable to php, but the world of physics with all
the symbols and equations is a language that is globally understood
regardless of it being case-sensitive. I don't expect to convince you that
php should be case-sensitive, all I'm saying is that physics as well as
mathematics sets an example of a case-sensitive language that really works.
And it's been that way for quite a long time now, the history of math goes
way back, thousands of years, before programming was even a concept.

This is a feeble argument. The symbols used in physics are almost always
single letters. This is a very different case from multi-letter
identifiers (which are in many cases words, or made of parts of words).

Colin
Dec 24 '05 #77
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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

Dec 24 '05 #78
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:

So why should I have to change MY programming habits just to match YOUR
programming habits? Who put you in charge?
You don't have to change your programming habits to match my programming
habits. You do, however, need to match the requirements of the
language.
The current requirement of PHP is that only variable names are
case-sensitive. What I am doing is arguing against the proposal that
function names also be made case-sensitive for no other reason than "to
bring it into line with other languages".

I will never, ever agree that case matters. It was only introduced in
the first place because those stupid unix programmers didn't know any
better. Bungling amateurs!


Then create your own language.

And no, it was NOT "introduce in the first place because those stupid
unix programmers didn't know any better". They knew what they were
doing, and had a lot more experience than you did. They were also able
to create a language, compiler and operating system - all of which are
amongst the most popular around even today. "Bungling amateurs"? I
think not.

More argument by blatant assertion. Nobody is disputing the achievements
of the unix developers, but that doesn't mean that everything they did
was perfect. I agree with Tony that case sensitivity was an enormous
mistake.

You go ahead and do the same. Then you can create a case-insensitive
language.

But don't expect it it to be widely accepted.

You're probably right. But don't suppose that popularity has very much
to do with merit.

Colin
Dec 24 '05 #79
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 24 '05 #80
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: More argument by blatant assertion. Nobody is disputing the achievements
of the unix developers, but that doesn't mean that everything they did
was perfect. I agree with Tony that case sensitivity was an enormous
mistake.

Well, it's a hell a lot more than you've done, isn't it? And since they
created the language, they get to set the rules.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.

Progress ALWAYS has its detractors.
You go ahead and do the same. Then you can create a case-insensitive
language.

But don't expect it it to be widely accepted.
You're probably right. But don't suppose that popularity has very much
to do with merit.


If a language has enough merit, it will become popular. Examples
include C, C++, Java and PHP. All have significant merit in what their
areas, and all have become widely accepted.

Colin

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 24 '05 #81
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@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

Dec 24 '05 #82
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


More argument by blatant assertion. Nobody is disputing the
achievements of the unix developers, but that doesn't mean that
everything they did was perfect. I agree with Tony that case
sensitivity was an enormous mistake.


Well, it's a hell a lot more than you've done, isn't it? And since they
created the language, they get to set the rules.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.

Progress ALWAYS has its detractors.

WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????

PHP5 is a vast improvement on PHP4 in a number of ways. But they could
equally well have resolved the inconsistency between variable and
function names by removing case sensitivity for the former.
You go ahead and do the same. Then you can create a case-insensitive
language.

But don't expect it it to be widely accepted.

You're probably right. But don't suppose that popularity has very much
to do with merit.

If a language has enough merit, it will become popular. Examples
include C, C++, Java and PHP. All have significant merit in what their
areas, and all have become widely accepted.

You've chosen four popular languages and said, look they're popular.
What about the hundreds of language you've never heard of. I have no
doubt some of them had considerable merit.

Colin
Dec 24 '05 #83
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

to**@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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 24 '05 #84
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

More argument by blatant assertion. Nobody is disputing the
achievements of the unix developers, but that doesn't mean that
everything they did was perfect. I agree with Tony that case
sensitivity was an enormous mistake.


Well, it's a hell a lot more than you've done, isn't it? And since
they created the language, they get to set the rules.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.

Progress ALWAYS has its detractors.

WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????


Because it's better, IMHO. And if the majority of programmers didn't
think it was progress, it wouldn't have caught on.
PHP5 is a vast improvement on PHP4 in a number of ways. But they could
equally well have resolved the inconsistency between variable and
function names by removing case sensitivity for the former.

And I could ask you why it's a vast improvement. You'd have your
opinions, but I wouldn't have to agree with them.

You go ahead and do the same. Then you can create a case-insensitive
language.

But don't expect it it to be widely accepted.

You're probably right. But don't suppose that popularity has very
much to do with merit.


If a language has enough merit, it will become popular. Examples
include C, C++, Java and PHP. All have significant merit in what
their areas, and all have become widely accepted.

You've chosen four popular languages and said, look they're popular.
What about the hundreds of language you've never heard of. I have no
doubt some of them had considerable merit.


Yep. But about those other languages you mentioned. Name some and
their merits. And if you can, why they failed.
Colin

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 24 '05 #85

"Wayne" <no*@here.com> wrote in message
news:bt********************************@4ax.com...
On 23 Dec 2005 01:15:37 -0800, to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:
Wayne wrote:
Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.
What I'm saying is that some teams like their variable names in all
upper case, while others like them all lower case. Either is
acceptable, but mixing case in the same variable name is frowned upon
by both camps.


Ok. But that was my point. What's the point of having
case-insensitivity if mixing cases is frowned upon. Clearly you only
want to one case spelling of a function or variable to be valid.


By mixing case I mean mixing case in the same word. Some organisations like
all upper case, some like all lower case, but NOBODY likes a mixture of case
in the same word. That is the difference.
>> People have no
>> trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about
>> the
>> difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>> those have different meanings,
>
>Not to me, they don't.

So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?


The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
upper or lower case.


You didn't answer my question! -5 points for you!


You name me any language that has the same function name listed more than
once in a different case. You cannot because there is none. When you see a
function name in a program and you check the manual for its description it
doesn't matter whether it's expressed in upper case, lower case, or a
mixture of case - that function name only has one entry. Just like in any
language dictionary a word is only defined once, and it has exactly the same
meaning whether it is written in upper or lower case.
Saying that the programmer must go find the original declared version
of the function to determine what it does, doesn't answer the
question.


Any language that deliberately allows the same variable or function name to
exist in more than one case, and to have different meanings for each
combination of case would be immediately slammed as being a VERY BAD
language. If a language enforces case-sensitivity by auto-correcting each
name as you key it in, that is acceptable
Dec 24 '05 #86

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W5********************@comcast.com...
Colin Fine wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
to**@marston-home.demon.co.uk wrote:


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?


I never said that NO language should be case-sensitive, I said that a
previously case-insensitive language should not be changed to being
case-sensitive for no good reason other than "to be consistent with all the
others". This is especially a BAD idea if the language then allows the SAME
variable or function name to me different things just because of a change in
case. As has already been stated by others, some languages are
case-sensitive, but they detect the wrong case when the variable or function
name is being typed in and auto correct it.
Dec 24 '05 #87

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_Z******************************@comcast.com. ..
Colin Fine wrote:
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).


Why wouldn't you do it yourself? Because it would lead to confusing and
unmentionable code, that's why. Any language that allows a programmer to
create confusing and unmaintainable code is a BAD language in my book.
Dec 24 '05 #88
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:10:33 +0000, Colin Fine
<ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
PHP5 marked a step forward over PHP4, but Tony has changed my mind.
The one place where it has improved things (that I can now say
class MyClass
...
if get_class($var, 'MyClass') ...
and have it work)
is not enough to justify the change.


The reason for the change was for __AutoLoad(). Since most file
systems where PHP runs is case-sensitive you need to get the proper
case of the class to map it to a file name to load.

That's the reason for that change.

Dec 24 '05 #89

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:LY******************************@comcast.com. ..

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.


Are you saying that the vast majority of programmers would agree with a
language that allowed the same variable or function name to exist in
different mixtures of upper and lower case, and for each combination of case
to have a different meaning? That would make it far easier to write
unmaintainable code. Would that be a good or a bad thing?
Dec 24 '05 #90
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:03:27 +0000, Colin Fine
<ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.


Case-sensitive begets case-sensitive. If you have a case-sensitive
file system, that tends to bleed over to case-sensitive language
identifiers. Once you have one langauge that's case-sensitive (like
C) other languages need to interface with that language.

If all programming languages existed in a vacuum, then you could
pretty much do whatever you want. But in reality, everything has to
work with everything else and really only the languages that play nice
in the overall world succeed. PHP became popular originally because
it leveraged many existing C libraries.

I'm not sure it matters anymore which choice is better -- it's simply
a matter of which ever is more common. Betamax vs. VHS.

Dec 24 '05 #91

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nO********************@comcast.com...
Colin Fine wrote:
Well, it's a hell a lot more than you've done, isn't it? And since they
created the language, they get to set the rules.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.

Progress ALWAYS has its detractors.
WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????


Because it's better, IMHO.


Exactly why is case-sensitivity better? No human language allows a word to
have a different meaning just by canging its case, so why should a computer
language be different, espeically when that difference allows for
unmaintainable code?
And if the majority of programmers didn't think it was progress, it
wouldn't have caught on.


Mere programmers don't have a choice, it's only the language authors that
have a choice. And what was their reason for choosing case-sensitivity when
all previous languages, whether human or computer, were entirely and
completely case-insensitive? There is no good reason, which leads me to the
conclusion that it was a STUPID MISTAKE that you are trying to perpetuate.
Dec 24 '05 #92
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:09:24 +0000, Colin Fine
<ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????

PHP5 is a vast improvement on PHP4 in a number of ways. But they could
equally well have resolved the inconsistency between variable and
function names by removing case sensitivity for the former.
I'd say that adding case-sensitivity breaks less code than removing
case-sensitivity would. Adding case-sensitivity in PHP might create a
alot of hard errors (calling functions with the wrong case, for
example) but it will never go silently. Removing case-sensitivity
from variables can easily create situations where you silently end up
with incorrect results.
You've chosen four popular languages and said, look they're popular.
What about the hundreds of language you've never heard of. I have no
doubt some of them had considerable merit.


Any languages that have features of significant merit eventually get
incorporated into popular languages. HaskellDB is being incorporated
into C# in the form of LINQ. Very soon millions of programmers will
use a powerful feature of Haskell yet only a few thousand will ever
even know where it came from.

Dec 24 '05 #93
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:48:06 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
By mixing case I mean mixing case in the same word. Some organisations like
all upper case, some like all lower case, but NOBODY likes a mixture of case
in the same word. That is the difference.
Ummm.. camelCase is used ALOT. In fact, camelCase is now becoming
the standard for PHP. avariablelikethisisveryhardtounderstand.
itsMuchEasierToSayThingsWithSomeCapitals.
>> trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about
>> the
>> difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>> those have different meanings,
>
>Not to me, they don't.

So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
me, please, what does that function do?

The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
upper or lower case.


You didn't answer my question! -5 points for you!


You name me any language that has the same function name listed more than
once in a different case.


What, you cannot image an application with both setsLower() and
setSlower() functions? Or at least something similar...
Any language that deliberately allows the same variable or function name to
exist in more than one case, and to have different meanings for each
combination of case would be immediately slammed as being a VERY BAD
language.
Wow. You just said that every single modern programming language is
VERY BAD. Why should we listen to your opinions?
If a language enforces case-sensitivity by auto-correcting each
name as you key it in, that is acceptable


The last language that did that -- Visual Basic -- is now dead. It
was case-insensitive but corrected the case to the declared casing.

Merry Christmas,

Dec 24 '05 #94
Message-ID: <gq********************************@4ax.com> from Wayne
contained the following:
The last language that did that -- Visual Basic -- is now dead. It
was case-insensitive but corrected the case to the declared casing.


Dead? How so?

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Dec 25 '05 #95
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:03:55 +0000, Geoff Berrow
<bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
Message-ID: <gq********************************@4ax.com> from Wayne
contained the following:
The last language that did that -- Visual Basic -- is now dead. It
was case-insensitive but corrected the case to the declared casing.


Dead? How so?


Discontinued. Oh but I see that VB.NET is also case-sensitive (I
didn't know that) so nevermind!

Dec 25 '05 #96
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_Z******************************@comcast.com. ..
Colin Fine wrote:
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).

Why wouldn't you do it yourself? Because it would lead to confusing and
unmentionable code, that's why. Any language that allows a programmer to
create confusing and unmaintainable code is a BAD language in my book.


You can create confusing and unmaintainable code in ANY language - even
COBOL. Case sensitivity has NOTHING to do with it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 25 '05 #97
Tony Marston wrote:
Because it's better, IMHO.

Exactly why is case-sensitivity better? No human language allows a word to
have a different meaning just by canging its case, so why should a computer
language be different, espeically when that difference allows for
unmaintainable code?


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.

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.
And if the majority of programmers didn't think it was progress, it
wouldn't have caught on.

Mere programmers don't have a choice, it's only the language authors that
have a choice. And what was their reason for choosing case-sensitivity when
all previous languages, whether human or computer, were entirely and
completely case-insensitive? There is no good reason, which leads me to the
conclusion that it was a STUPID MISTAKE that you are trying to perpetuate.


Horse Hockey. EVERY programmer has a choice as to which language to use.

And quite frankly, most programmers I know would put you in the
"old-timer-has-been-who-refuses-to-change-but-wants-everyone-else-to-change-to-suit-him"

category.

And quite frankly, I really don't give a damn what you think. So I'm
not going to waste any more of my time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 25 '05 #98
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:LY******************************@comcast.com. ..
It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.

Are you saying that the vast majority of programmers would agree with a
language that allowed the same variable or function name to exist in
different mixtures of upper and lower case, and for each combination of case
to have a different meaning? That would make it far easier to write
unmaintainable code. Would that be a good or a bad thing?


They would agree with a languages that allows the same variable or
function name to exist in different mixtures of case. After all, 'a' is
NOT the same character as 'A'.

They even agree that each combination of case could have a different
meaning.

But they do not agree that it makes it far easier to write
unmaintainable code. You can do that in ANY language.

In fact, I find mixed case makes code MORE maintainable.

But I digress. You're not worth any more of my time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Dec 25 '05 #99

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4L******************************@comcast.com. ..
Tony Marston wrote:
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).

Why wouldn't you do it yourself? Because it would lead to confusing and
unmentionable code, that's why. Any language that allows a programmer to
create confusing and unmaintainable code is a BAD language in my book.


You can create confusing and unmaintainable code in ANY language - even
COBOL. Case sensitivity has NOTHING to do with it.


Case-sensitivity is the whole point of this thread. Any language that has a
feature which can be abused and which produces unmaintainable code is a BAD
language. Any language that allows the same variable or function name to
exist in different combinations of upper and lower case, and to give a
different meaning to each of those combinations, is a BAD language. Case is
irrelevant in all human languages, so it should be irrelevant in all
computer languages.

Why do most modern languages exclude the GOTO statement? Because it is
considered BAD.

Jus because some computer languages have case-sensitivity does not make it a
good idea It is just a bad idea that is being perpetuated against all logic
and reason.
Dec 25 '05 #100

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
by: Jason Mobarak | last post by:
Greetings! Say that it's desirable to provide backwards compatibility for methods of an object, consider the case where... class Foo: def bar (self, a, b): pass ....is a defined class...
7
by: Sonny | last post by:
I need to port a library that is written entirely in C to C++. The library is supported on quite a few platforms (windows, Solaris, Linux, AIX, HP-UX, OSX, etc...) and there's quite an existing...
70
by: py | last post by:
I have function which takes an argument. My code needs that argument to be an iterable (something i can loop over)...so I dont care if its a list, tuple, etc. So I need a way to make sure that...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.