150  6296 
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:To******************************@comcast.com. .. 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.
Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
always been this way" is not an argument.
The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking apples
and oranges.
Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and computer
languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they are
like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.
The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that had
existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to perform
case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
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.
Most programmers have no choice. They have to use what their employer tells
them 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.
I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I am
just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for 30
years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL case-insensitive,
and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
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.
Just as I don't give a damn what you think.
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:To******************************@comcast.com. .. 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.
I think not.
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.
What do you mean by 'same'?
Are you saying that 'box', 'Box' and 'BOX' point to the same variable, or 3
different variables?
Are you saying that 'dosomething()', 'doSomething()' and 'doSomeThing()'
point to the same function, or 3 different functions?
Which would lead to confusing and unmaintainable code, and shuld therefore
be avoided?
After all, 'a' is NOT the same character as 'A'.
It may not be the same combination of bits in a computer language, but to a
human it is the letter 'a' wit case bein irrelevant.
They even agree that each combination of case could have a different
meaning.
I think not. Can you name me any computer language where the authors have
deliberately created their own variable and function names in different
mixtures of upper and lower case with a different meaning for each mixture?
Why not? Because it would be confusing. You have already stated yourself
that even though the language allows it you would not deliberately use
different case on the same word to give different meanings. Why not? Because
it would be confusing. So if there is a "feature" in the language that you
would not use, and you agree that usig it would lead to confusing code, then
why on earth do you want this "feature" to remain in the laguage. Why do you
continue to insist that such a "feature" is a good idea? It does not sound
very logical to me.
But they do not agree that it makes it far easier to write unmaintainable
code. You can do that in ANY language.
Yes, but as languages continue to evolve those constructs which are
considered tooharmful, and which allow programmers to shoot themselves in
the foot and produce spagetti or unmaintainale code are gradually
eliminated. That is why the ALTER verb was removed from the COBOL standard.
That is why GOTO was removed from subsequent languages. Remember, I
programmed with COBOL for 16 years so I have direct experience of these.
In fact, I find mixed case makes code MORE maintainable.
How? You have already stated that you would never personally write code that
contained the same variable or function name in different mixtures of case,
so you are avoiding something which you consider to be MORE maintainable,
thereby producing code which is LESS mantainable. Your logic just boggles
the mind.
But I digress. You're not worth any more of my time.
That's funny. I have the same opinion about you.
Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
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.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Why do most modern languages exclude the GOTO statement? Because it is
considered BAD.
Do they? The last time I checked all modern languages get translated to
machine code at compile time and all machine languages I know have an
equivalent to GOTO, which is usually called JMP in Assembler.
Bye!
Tony Marston wrote: I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried to
tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
arguments.
Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
always been this way" is not an argument.
I can agree with that, but...
The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking apples
and oranges.
Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and computer
languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they are
like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.
.... now you are getting ridiculous. Human languages and computer
languages might share the same origin, but they du not share the same
purpose.
Human languages developed over time. Words changed meanings and
spelling, the grammar changed, too. On top of that humans communicate
differently than machines. We have a lot of words that communicate
vagueness or uncertainty. How much is 'a lot of'?
Computer languages on the other hand were designed from the bottom up
and their only purpose is to eliminate any vagueness in communication so
that a machine that only knows logical states (0 or 1) can follow a set
of instructions in a concise and repeatable way.
That is why computer and human languages are *very* different. If it
were not so nobody would need programmers.
The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that had
existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to perform
case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
Complete nonsense. The first computer languages were case insensitive
because the first computers only had upper case letters. Human languages
on the other hand never were case insensitive.
I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I am
just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for 30
years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL case-insensitive,
and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
Don't make me laugh. I've been into computers for only about 22 years,
but I know computers like C64, VIC20 and PET and know why they were case
insensitive. Simply because they lacked lower case.
Bye!
Anonymous said the following on 25/12/2005 12:21: Tony Marston wrote:
Why do most modern languages exclude the GOTO statement? Because it is
considered BAD.
Do they? The last time I checked all modern languages get translated to
machine code at compile time
Like C#, Java, PHP, VB, VBScript, JavaScript, Python and MATLAB do?
and all machine languages I know have an
equivalent to GOTO, which is usually called JMP in Assembler.
Yes, but the low-level constructs are usually completely abstracted by
the high-level language, that's the point of a high-level language. The
machine-code that a compiler/interpreter produces/invokes is just a
method of implementing each of the high-level constructs - the fact that
there's a GOTO construct at the machine level has no influence on
whether there's a GOTO construct at the language level.
--
Oli
"Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid... Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
Any language that allows stupid mistakes is a bad language. That's why some
programmers say that statically-typed and compiled languages are better that
dynamically-typed interpretted languages.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Trust the bloody square-head sausage-eaters to throw a spanner in the works.
But in ENGLISH, which is the universal language, there is no difference.
Just check out any dictionary. Does it have separate entries in each case?
No? I wonder why.....
"Wayne" <no*@here.com> wrote in message
news:e7********************************@4ax.com... 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.
Oh, I see. Just because the developers of UNIX screwed up by introducing
case-sensitivity the rest of the world has to follow suit just to be
*consistent*.
"Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid... Tony Marston wrote: > I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried
> to
> tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
> arguments.
Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
always been this way" is not an argument.
I can agree with that, but...
> The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
> instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you
> can
> compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking
> apples
> and oranges.
Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and
computer
languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they
are
like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.
... now you are getting ridiculous. Human languages and computer
languages might share the same origin, but they du not share the same
purpose.
Yes they do, it's called *communication*. A computer language is used so
that a human can tell a computer what instructions to follow. That is why
COBOL was constructed around subjects, verbs, predicates, sentences and
paragraphs.
Human languages developed over time.
Having been in IT for over 30 years I have noticed that computer languages
and operating systems evolve over time as well.
Words changed meanings and
spelling, the grammar changed, too. On top of that humans communicate
differently than machines. We have a lot of words that communicate
vagueness or uncertainty. How much is 'a lot of'?
Computer languages on the other hand were designed from the bottom up
and their only purpose is to eliminate any vagueness in communication so
that a machine that only knows logical states (0 or 1) can follow a set
of instructions in a concise and repeatable way.
That is why computer and human languages are *very* different. If it
were not so nobody would need programmers.
You would still need a method of allowing a human to communicate his wishes
to the computer. The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that
had
existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to
perform
case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
Complete nonsense. The first computer languages were case insensitive
because the first computers only had upper case letters. Human languages
on the other hand never were case insensitive.
But when those early computers changed to character sets which allowed both
upper and lower case they did not enforce one case or the other, thus
becoming case-insensitive. How do I know this? BECAUSE I WAS THERE, DUMMY! I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I
am
just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for
30
years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL
case-insensitive,
and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
Don't make me laugh. I've been into computers for only about 22 years,
but I know computers like C64, VIC20 and PET and know why they were case
insensitive. Simply because they lacked lower case.
My experience is with *business* computers, not *hobby* computers. Before
personal computers (known originally as micro-computers) came out I worked
on mainframes and mini-computers, all of which had both upper and lower case
and were insensitive to case.
"Wayne" <no*@here.com> wrote in message
news:4j********************************@4ax.com... 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.
Only if you deliberately have the same variable name in the same scope in
different mixtures of upper and lower case, thus producing different
variables. How many programmers do you know who would do that?
"Wayne" <no*@here.com> wrote in message
news:gq********************************@4ax.com... 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.
Only because a few core developers are enforcing it. Nobody asked the
millions of users.
avariablelikethisisveryhardtounderstand.
itsMuchEasierToSayThingsWithSomeCapitals.
That's why some people still prefer to use the undersore as a word
separator, to produce something like
an_underscore_is_far_better_than_those_stupid_came lcaps. This is the
preferrd method in ANSI SQL for example, and has been since day 1.
Tony Marston wrote: "Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid...
Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
Any language that allows stupid mistakes is a bad language. That's why some
programmers say that statically-typed and compiled languages are better that
dynamically-typed interpretted languages.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Trust the bloody square-head sausage-eaters to throw a spanner in the works.
But in ENGLISH, which is the universal language, there is no difference.
Just check out any dictionary. Does it have separate entries in each case?
No? I wonder why.....
Gee, another American who thinks he's the center of the universe...
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Sr******************************@comcast.com. .. Tony Marston wrote: "Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid...
Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
Any language that allows stupid mistakes is a bad language. That's why
some programmers say that statically-typed and compiled languages are
better that dynamically-typed interpretted languages.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Trust the bloody square-head sausage-eaters to throw a spanner in the
works. But in ENGLISH, which is the universal language, there is no
difference. Just check out any dictionary. Does it have separate entries
in each case? No? I wonder why.....
Gee, another American who thinks he's the center of the universe...
No, I'm English, not American. And there was a time when we WERE the center
of the universe. That's why English is the universal language.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:52:24 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: Ummm.. camelCase is used ALOT. In fact, camelCase is now becoming
the standard for PHP.
Only because a few core developers are enforcing it. Nobody asked the
millions of users.
Have you asked the millions of users? It's a bit presumptuous to
assume that you know what PHP developers want better than the
developers of the language!
From what I've seen, developers wanted everything they got in PHP5
including camelCase.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:46:43 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: Yes they do, it's called *communication*. A computer language is used so
that a human can tell a computer what instructions to follow. That is why
COBOL was constructed around subjects, verbs, predicates, sentences and
paragraphs.
And COBOL was forever deemed a bad idea. Now we have languages with
curly-braces, semi-colons, arthimentic operators all mixed in, etc.
And we consider that an improvement.
If programming languages were like English, statements would end with
period instead of a semi-colon.
Having been in IT for over 30 years I have noticed that computer languages
and operating systems evolve over time as well.
Given that you seem to have only programmed in dinosaur languages, I
find this hard to believe.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:02:47 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: I think not. Can you name me any computer language where the authors have
deliberately created their own variable and function names in different
mixtures of upper and lower case with a different meaning for each mixture?
C.
Typedefs and constants are almost always all upper-case and variables
and functions all lower-case. And they do commonly mix these two
things together. For C programmers, they always thing of all
upper-case variables as being in an entirely different namespace from
all-lowercase variables.
FILE* file.
Why not? Because it would be confusing.
Apparently it's even less confusing, since the namespace/type of the
variable is known by it's case.
You know, I don't really care that much about the case-sensitivity
issue. I've programmed in PHP for years and hardly noticed the
different (case sensitive variables, case insensitive functions).
Neither one seemed to case more errors one way or the other. I can
also effortless move from VB to C++ and never have a problem with it
either.
I think you're making it a bigger issue than it is. If the PHP
developers want to change it for consistency sake, that seems to be a
good enough reason. It really won't affect anyone too much either
way.
Wayne wrote: 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.
So what happens if you use it on an OS with case-insensitive filenames?
Colin
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:20:11 +0000, Colin Fine <ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk>
wrote: 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.
So what happens if you use it on an OS with case-insensitive filenames?
Then it picks up the file with the capitalisation matching the class name, but
it's then not portable.
The main case-insensitive filesystems (FAT32, NTFS) are still case-preserving
anyway, so a file still has a single canonical name capitalised in a specific
way.
--
Andy Hassall :: an**@andyh.co.uk :: http://www.andyh.co.uk http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool
Jerry Stuckle wrote: 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.
How's that again?
So "because most people like it that way" is a valid philosophical argument?
I'm not expecting, or suggesting, that case sensitivity is going to
disappear. But that has no bearing at all on whether or not it is a
thoroughly bad idea.
However, there have been other reasons mentioned in this topic. But I
suspect none of them are "good enough" for you.
Really? The only reasons I can find in the trail (apart from the appeal
to the majority*, and the scurrilous insinuation that case insensitive
is somehow of the past and therefore worthless) are a barely relevant
point from physics and a specific operational issue in PHP (which is in
any case dependent on case sensitivity in the OS).
* Did the majority ever vote on the topic? And don't say they did so by
choosing C/Java/Perl: any of these could have been made case insensitive
and there would have been essentially no difference; but they weren't
offered.
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).
The argument is that to people (you remember people? the things that
write programs) 'project', 'Project' and 'PROJECT' *are* the same thing,
and we all have to learn that we must always make a new distinction
(which you have yet to demonstrate is useful) when we program.
Colin
Tony Marston wrote: "Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid...
Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
Any language that allows stupid mistakes is a bad language. That's why some
programmers say that statically-typed and compiled languages are better that
dynamically-typed interpretted languages.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Trust the bloody square-head sausage-eaters to throw a spanner in the works.
But in ENGLISH, which is the universal language, there is no difference.
Just check out any dictionary. Does it have separate entries in each case?
No? I wonder why.....
Umm - I think you are putting a bit of a spanner in your own argument
here, Tony (witness the replies you got).
Yes, there are occasional cases where the case makes a difference, even
in English (consider 'reading', 'polish' and 'natal'). But in most
languages which use the Roman, Greek or Cyrillic alphabets the case is
hardly ever significant. German is a sort of exception because all nouns
are capitalised, but if I write VÖGELN you can't tell whether it's the
noun or the verb. And most other scripts don't have capitals (I think
Armenian does, and Georgian uses a sort of capital for titles).
But this looks like the "I can't counter this argument so I'll pick him
up on a triviality" defense from 'Anonymous'.
Colin
Wayne wrote: 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.
I agree (and from what I've been told about Betamax, the comparison is
apt). But people seem intent on rubbishing Tony because he dares to say
"Betamax is better", or rather "Why have you changed my machine to VHS
without asking me?"
Colin
Jerry Stuckle wrote: 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.
No. Because it's apparently escaped your notice that most programs are
written by people.
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.
Yes. But if all the languages they are being offered are case sensitive,
that is what we may call a stacked deck.
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.
I'm sorry? I think you mean the
'old-timer-who-doesnt-see-the-need-to-change-something-that-works' 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.
You didn't have to reply to Tony's critique in the first place. But for
some reason you took it as an attack you had to defend against.
Happy new year
Colin
Tony Marston wrote:
I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried to
tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
arguments.
Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
always been this way" is not an argument.
The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking apples
and oranges.
Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and computer
languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they are
like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.
The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that had
existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to perform
case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
Again you are allowing hyperbole (and vituperation) to pollute your
argument. Case goes back not much more than a thousand years, and is
only found in scripts developed in Europe.
Your point nevertheless stands, since the people in question were
English speakers.
And I suspect that a major driver for case sensitivity in Unix was a
demand for short options on the command line, so they chose to make '-b'
and '-B' different in that context, and extended it to everywhere else.
Colin
Jerry Stuckle wrote: 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'.
True. But 'a' is the same WORD as 'A'. And most variable names are (or
are made of) words.
Colin
Wayne wrote:
You know, I don't really care that much about the case-sensitivity
issue. I've programmed in PHP for years and hardly noticed the
different (case sensitive variables, case insensitive functions).
Neither one seemed to case more errors one way or the other. I can
also effortless move from VB to C++ and never have a problem with it
either.
I think you're making it a bigger issue than it is. If the PHP
developers want to change it for consistency sake, that seems to be a
good enough reason. It really won't affect anyone too much either
way.
Pardon me? Tony wrote a paper with his opinions, and pointed people at
it. *Somebody else* made a big issue of it.
Happy new year
Colin
Colin Fine wrote: Jerry Stuckle 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.
How's that again?
So "because most people like it that way" is a valid philosophical
argument?
When the vast majority of programmers support the same philosophy, yes.
I'm not expecting, or suggesting, that case sensitivity is going to
disappear. But that has no bearing at all on whether or not it is a
thoroughly bad idea.
However, there have been other reasons mentioned in this topic. But I
suspect none of them are "good enough" for you.
Really? The only reasons I can find in the trail (apart from the appeal
to the majority*, and the scurrilous insinuation that case insensitive
is somehow of the past and therefore worthless) are a barely relevant
point from physics and a specific operational issue in PHP (which is in
any case dependent on case sensitivity in the OS).
You should read again.
* Did the majority ever vote on the topic? And don't say they did so by
choosing C/Java/Perl: any of these could have been made case insensitive
and there would have been essentially no difference; but they weren't
offered.
But that's exactly how they voted. They used the language. If they
wouldn't have liked case sensitivity, they didn't have to use the language.
And don't give me any "They had to because their boss made them" crap.
C++ followed C in its case sensitivity. However, Java, PHP, etc. didn't
need to be case sensitive. They are because the original developers of
these languages saw the advantages and popularity of other case
sensitive languages.
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).
The argument is that to people (you remember people? the things that
write programs) 'project', 'Project' and 'PROJECT' *are* the same thing,
and we all have to learn that we must always make a new distinction
(which you have yet to demonstrate is useful) when we program.
Not to computers they aren't. And when I'm programming, they aren't the
same thing to me at all.
Colin
Here's a suggestion. Don't try to argue your philosophy in this
newsgroup. You can't win, and it just shows how stubborn, old fashioned
or just plain out of date you really are.
Don't like PHP's case sensitivity? DON'T USE IT!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Colin Fine wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No. Because it's apparently escaped your notice that most programs are
written by people.
So, what's your point? They have to be understood by computers. Why
not just write in machine code?
Horse Hockey. EVERY programmer has a choice as to which language to use.
Yes. But if all the languages they are being offered are case sensitive,
that is what we may call a stacked deck.
Not at all. There are a lot of languages which are not case dependent.
And if you don't like the options, create your own! 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.
I'm sorry? I think you mean the
'old-timer-who-doesnt-see-the-need-to-change-something-that-works'
category.
Nope, I meant *exactly* what I said. 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.
You didn't have to reply to Tony's critique in the first place. But for
some reason you took it as an attack you had to defend against.
Happy new year
Colin
No, and I didn't have to reply to yours either. But I did reply for the
benefit of new people here.
I didn't take it as an attack. I took it as a stupid statement by an
uninformed, past-his-prime or too stubborn to change programmer.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Colin Fine wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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'.
True. But 'a' is the same WORD as 'A'. And most variable names are (or
are made of) words.
Colin
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote: Don't like PHP's case sensitivity? DON'T USE IT!
Errr...PHP is case insensitive in regards to function names. That some
people are agitating to make it case sensitive was the original point
of this dicussion.
"Colin Fine" <ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Tony Marston wrote: "Anonymous" <an*******@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:43***************@nowhere.invalid...
Tony Marston wrote:
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
Then any language is bad by your definition.
Any language that allows stupid mistakes is a bad language. That's why
some programmers say that statically-typed and compiled languages are
better that dynamically-typed interpretted languages.
That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
Trust the bloody square-head sausage-eaters to throw a spanner in the
works. But in ENGLISH, which is the universal language, there is no
difference. Just check out any dictionary. Does it have separate entries
in each case? No? I wonder why.....
Umm - I think you are putting a bit of a spanner in your own argument
here, Tony (witness the replies you got).
Yes, there are occasional cases where the case makes a difference, even in
English (consider 'reading', 'polish' and 'natal'). But in most languages
which use the Roman, Greek or Cyrillic alphabets the case is hardly ever
significant. German is a sort of exception because all nouns are
capitalised, but if I write VÖGELN you can't tell whether it's the noun or
the verb. And most other scripts don't have capitals (I think Armenian
does, and Georgian uses a sort of capital for titles).
The fact that some human languages have words which can be either a noun or
a verb, with different capitalisation to distinguish between the two, is
irrelevant. In all computer languages variables and function names are
easily distinguishable, therefore different capitalisation is irrelevant.
But this looks like the "I can't counter this argument so I'll pick him up
on a triviality" defense from 'Anonymous'.
You are using elements of human language which do not exist in any computer
language and are therefore irreevant.
Tony Marston
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oa******************************@comcast.com. .. Colin Fine wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No. Because it's apparently escaped your notice that most programs are
written by people.
So, what's your point? They have to be understood by computers. Why not
just write in machine code?
That argument is so stupid it is not worthy of reply. Except to point out
that it IS stupid.
Tony Marston
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oa******************************@comcast.com. .. Colin Fine wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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'.
True. But 'a' is the same WORD as 'A'. And most variable names are (or
are made of) words.
Colin
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box', 'Box'
and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different variables. If
you really want to have three different boxes you would use names such as
'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
Is there any computer language which has built-in function and variable
names which come with different capitalisation to me different things? If
they do not make use of this feature, then why provide it in the first
place?
Would any sensible programmer deliberately create the same function and
variable names with different capitalisation to me different things? Would
this make the program more or less maintainable? If no sensible programmer
would use this feature, then why provide it in the first place?
Your argument seems to be "It exists, therefore it must be good".
My argument is "It is not good, therefore it should not exist".
Tony Marston
Chung Leong wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Don't like PHP's case sensitivity? DON'T USE IT!
Errr...PHP is case insensitive in regards to function names. That some
people are agitating to make it case sensitive was the original point
of this dicussion.
Yep. And some people would rather take away the case sensitivity for
variables than add case sensitivity for functions.
I'm for consistency. And I'm for case sensitivity in functions.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Tony Marston wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oa******************************@comcast.com. ..
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box', 'Box'
and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different variables. If
you really want to have three different boxes you would use names such as
'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
Is there any computer language which has built-in function and variable
names which come with different capitalisation to me different things? If
they do not make use of this feature, then why provide it in the first
place?
Would any sensible programmer deliberately create the same function and
variable names with different capitalisation to me different things? Would
this make the program more or less maintainable? If no sensible programmer
would use this feature, then why provide it in the first place?
Your argument seems to be "It exists, therefore it must be good".
My argument is "It is not good, therefore it should not exist".
Tony Marston
You keep rehashing the same argument. It's gone beyond stupid to inane,
and soon to go beyond that. I and others have already responded to
these trite statements. Yet you keep on.
Give it up, Tony. You're showing how big of an ass you really are.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yep. And some people would rather take away the case sensitivity for
variables than add case sensitivity for functions.
Personally, I would rather have case sensitivity in function name, but
only because it'd make things easier when you have to make calls from
Java/EMCAscript into PHP. I don't buy the argument that
case-sensitivity is inherently superior. And I'm definitely against
breaking backward compatibility.
I'm for consistency. And I'm for case sensitivity in functions.
That's a bogus association. Case-sensitivity does not equal
consistency. If you don't like identifiers spelled in different cases,
then don't do it. I don't see how you can, on one hand, defer to
programmers' good judgement in choosing reasonable case-sensitive names
(e.g. using Kool() and kooI() for different functions), yet not trust
them to use case in a reasonable manner in a case-insensitive scenario.
You argument is, if you please, inconsistent.
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tY******************************@comcast.com. .. Tony Marston wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oa******************************@comcast.com. ..
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box',
'Box' and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different
variables. If you really want to have three different boxes you would use
names such as 'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
Is there any computer language which has built-in function and variable
names which come with different capitalisation to me different things? If
they do not make use of this feature, then why provide it in the first
place?
Would any sensible programmer deliberately create the same function and
variable names with different capitalisation to me different things?
Would this make the program more or less maintainable? If no sensible
programmer would use this feature, then why provide it in the first
place?
Your argument seems to be "It exists, therefore it must be good".
My argument is "It is not good, therefore it should not exist".
Tony Marston
You keep rehashing the same argument. It's gone beyond stupid to inane,
and soon to go beyond that. I and others have already responded to these
trite statements. Yet you keep on.
Give it up, Tony. You're showing how big of an ass you really are.
I refuse to give it up for the simple reason that have yet to answer a
simple question regarding case-sensitivity.
Would any sensible programmer deliberately create variable or function names
in different mixtures of upper and lower case to mean different things? If,
as I strongly believe, no sensible programmer would do this, then why allow
the language to provide such a useless "feature" in the first place?
It's such a simple question, yet all you do is talk around it.
Tony Marston
Wayne wrote: 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.
Yeah, seeing how XHTML has taken the world by storm...
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.
Well, SQL is not exactly inconsequential. Neither is Visual Basic or
Delphi--outside of academia in any event.
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:20:11 +0000, Colin Fine
<ne**@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote: Wayne wrote: 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.
So what happens if you use it on an OS with case-insensitive filenames?
It still works fine. Just don't have two files (two classes) with the
same name matching the same case. I run my PHP5 project on Windows
and Unix -- works perfectly.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:49:17 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box', 'Box'
and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different variables. If
you really want to have three different boxes you would use names such as
'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
I'd like to point again (although not necessarily for you Tony, more
for Colin) that Human programmers, in case-sensitive languages, do use
case to distinquish meaning.
In Java, classes begin with an uppercase letter and
variables/functions do not. And "box" and "Box" are commonly used
together. In C, all capitals signals constants or types and BOX and
box are commonly used together.
Humans do these sorts of things. I'm not saying it's good or bad --
I'm just saying that's how it's done.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:00:56 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: Would any sensible programmer deliberately create variable or function names
in different mixtures of upper and lower case to mean different things?
As I mentioned in my previous posting, yes. As I mentioned in a
posting a week or so ago with the same content, yes. It happens all
the time in case-sensitive languages. Differences in case have
different sematic means and usually correspond to different namespaces
(classes, constants, variables, etc).
If, as I strongly believe, no sensible programmer would do this, then why allow
the language to provide such a useless "feature" in the first place?
The majority of C and Java code do just that. You need to change your
"strong belief".
It's such a simple question, yet all you do is talk around it.
You're not paying attention.
Tony Marston wrote: Would any sensible programmer deliberately create variable or function names
in different mixtures of upper and lower case to mean different things? If,
as I strongly believe, no sensible programmer would do this, then why allow
the language to provide such a useless "feature" in the first place?
I don't know if they're sensible, but there are definitely many
programmers out there who want to use generic words as class names. As
variables are most suitably named with generic words, the lack of
case-sensitivity would mean the necessity of using prefices in class
names--utterly unacceptable to some. Even though a unqiue name is
functionally superior to a generic noun, some people want to use the
latter. It's the same reason why people want namespace. Some people
just want to use generic nouns as class names. My theory is that
somehow they feel they gain some sort of control over reality when they
bespeak the meaning of a word. It is something totally irrational and,
therefore, cannot be argued against.
Wayne wrote: On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:49:17 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box', 'Box'
and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different variables. If
you really want to have three different boxes you would use names such as
'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
I'd like to point again (although not necessarily for you Tony, more
for Colin) that Human programmers, in case-sensitive languages, do use
case to distinquish meaning.
In Java, classes begin with an uppercase letter and
variables/functions do not. And "box" and "Box" are commonly used
together. In C, all capitals signals constants or types and BOX and
box are commonly used together.
Humans do these sorts of things. I'm not saying it's good or bad --
I'm just saying that's how it's done.
I don't deny it. I'm not saying that humans don't or can't do these things.
Case distinction is but one of the many distinctions and pernickity
rules that we have to learn when we learn to program in a language or
system that uses it. We can of course learn it, just as we can learn
that letter 'o' must be distinguished from zero. And because it's there,
some people make use of it.
But, to reiterate and expand my previous argument, the problem comes
when we make up the letters into words - which, most of the time we do,
when we are naming things - variables, classes, files.
Those of us who grew up with English (and other European languages which
have case in their alphabets) are used to thinking of the word 'box' as
being the same word whether written 'BOX' 'box', 'Box' or even 'bOX'.
It's not that we can't distinguish these, but we don't normally need to,
and more significantly, we don't have very convenient ways of expressing
the distinction.
This means first that (as I said before) if we need to dictate a line of
code over the phone, we need in principle to express the case of every
letter. There are ways of shortening this of course, and if there is a
relevant convention (such initial cap, or camel case) we may be able to
express it relatively easily, provided the hearer knows the convention.
But actually I think there is a more severe issue, to do with
remembering and comparing names. The variable I was just using in that
other routine - was it called 'textbox', 'TextBox' or 'textBox'? For me
anyway, remembering a name made up of ordinary words or familiar
abbreviations for them is trivial (I probably vocalise it). But
remembering the case, if it is not all a single case, is not trivial -
it takes more effort and is prone to error. I can't believe that I am
the only one to have this experience.
It is true, of course, that conventions for use of case assist in this.
If I know that class names will always have an initial capital, I don't
have to remember this for each name. But I find that in practice there
are lots of different conventions and I'm often switching from one to
another as I work on different scripts written by different people at
different times, even on the same system. A particular bugbear (because
particularly difficult to remember) is when using CamelCase, are little
words in the middle of names capitalised or not? (i.e. is it WriteToFile
or WritetoFile?) Again you can, and probably should, have a convention,
but what if there are different conventions?
Somebody will probably come back and say, well you should have
conventions on this and then you won't have a problem. And I say, yes,
but if the language weren't case sensitive in the first place, there
wouldn't be a problem.
Despite Jerry's insistence, I have yet to see an argument in favour of
case sensitivity that doesn't come down to either 'everybody uses it' or
'for consistency with XXX system that uses it'. I recognise that as a
practical fact it is here to stay, and yes, I use it. But that doesn't
stop me from arguing its demerits, and I resent being patronised and
insulted for doing so (by Jerry, rather than by you Wayne).
Colin
Message-ID: <dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk> from Colin Fine
contained the following: Despite Jerry's insistence, I have yet to see an argument in favour of
case sensitivity that doesn't come down to either 'everybody uses it' or
'for consistency with XXX system that uses it'.
I haven't either.
Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
--
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/
Geoff Berrow wrote: Message-ID: <dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk> from Colin Fine
contained the following:
<snip> Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Yup, that's great. I'll be much happy to see case sensitivity for
functions/methods. Now, it's much irritating when others break (our)
camelCasing method naming conventions--that is, if we have dbOpen
method, they break it by calling it as $foo->DBOPEN--such distinctions
make the method looks alien at first glance and the 3rd programmer
finds difficult.
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
In article <11**********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote: Geoff Berrow wrote: Message-ID: <dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk> from Colin Fine
contained the following: <snip> Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Yup, that's great. I'll be much happy to see case sensitivity for
functions/methods. Now, it's much irritating when others break (our)
camelCasing method naming conventions--that is, if we have dbOpen
method, they break it by calling it as $foo->DBOPEN--such distinctions
make the method looks alien at first glance and the 3rd programmer
finds difficult.
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
<?="Just another PHP saint" ?>
:)
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
--
Sandman[.net]
"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
- Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.
Sandman wrote: In article <11**********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote:
<snip> --
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
<?="Just another PHP saint" ?>
:)
Hmm... The first commandment is "Don't use short tags and double
quotes":-)
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:17:35 +0000, Geoff Berrow
<bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote: Message-ID: <dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk> from Colin Fine
contained the following:
Despite Jerry's insistence, I have yet to see an argument in favour of
case sensitivity that doesn't come down to either 'everybody uses it' or
'for consistency with XXX system that uses it'.
I haven't either.
Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Oh sweet Jesus, not another radical langauge-changing ini setting!
Message-ID: <rq********************************@4ax.com> from Wayne
contained the following: Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Oh sweet Jesus, not another radical langauge-changing ini setting!
There is exaggeration on both sides. I never find case sensitivity a
problem. It would be a sloppy coder who continually changed the case of
variables and I'm not pushing for it, but if enough people want it....
--
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/
R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote: Geoff Berrow wrote: Message-ID: <dp*******************@news.demon.co.uk> from Colin Fine
contained the following:
<snip> Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Yup, that's great. I'll be much happy to see case sensitivity for
functions/methods. Now, it's much irritating when others break (our)
camelCasing method naming conventions--that is, if we have dbOpen
method, they break it by calling it as $foo->DBOPEN--such distinctions
make the method looks alien at first glance and the 3rd programmer
finds difficult.
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
What really irritates me is when women leave the toilet seat up.
Really, it's down right inconsistent to be able to piss both standing
up and sitting down into the same toilet. I'm for urinals in every home.
Chung Leong wrote: R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote: Geoff Berrow wrote:
<snip> Making PHP optionally case insensitive via an ini setting wouldn't
affect any existing scripts.
Yup, that's great. I'll be much happy to see case sensitivity for
functions/methods. Now, it's much irritating when others break (our)
camelCasing method naming conventions--that is, if we have dbOpen
method, they break it by calling it as $foo->DBOPEN--such distinctions
make the method looks alien at first glance and the 3rd programmer
finds difficult.
What really irritates me is when women leave the toilet seat up.
Really, it's down right inconsistent to be able to piss both standing
up and sitting down into the same toilet. I'm for urinals in every home.
I don't get your metaphor. But, if's anything to signal to shut my
mouth, I accept:-)
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
"Wayne" <no*@here.com> wrote in message
news:cd********************************@4ax.com... On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:49:17 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Not in C, C++, Java, etc. they aren't. And we're talking COMPUTER
languages here - not HUMAN languages. Or can't you figure out the
difference?
But the point of this argument is that variable names such as 'box', 'Box'
and 'BOX' should all indicate the same variable, not different variables.
If
you really want to have three different boxes you would use names such as
'box1', 'box2' and 'box3' to avoid any confusion.
I'd like to point again (although not necessarily for you Tony, more
for Colin) that Human programmers, in case-sensitive languages, do use
case to distinquish meaning.
In Java, classes begin with an uppercase letter and
variables/functions do not. And "box" and "Box" are commonly used
together. In C, all capitals signals constants or types and BOX and
box are commonly used together.
Humans do these sorts of things. I'm not saying it's good or bad --
I'm just saying that's how it's done.
Something which happens in a minority of languages should not be considered
as the standard for ALL languages. Just because *shit happens* does not make
*shit* the standard. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
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...
|
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...
|
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...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
| |
