Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #2565 > unrolled thread

error message I don understand

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:38 +0000
    Re: error message I don understand Billy Mays <81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashismyemail.com> - 2011-07-15 10:44 -0400
      Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-15 17:26 +0000
        Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-15 18:45 +0100
          Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-15 18:36 +0000
            Re: error message I don understand VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2011-07-15 14:25 -0500
              Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-15 21:36 +0100
                Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 09:17 +0000
                  Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-16 13:52 +0100
                Re: error message I don understand Heinrich Käsner <heinkasner@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 07:02 -0700
            Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-15 21:35 +0100
            Re: error message I don understand Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-16 09:30 -0400
              Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 19:14 +0000
                Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-16 22:18 +0100
    Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-15 17:49 +0100
      Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-15 17:25 +0000
    Re: error message I don understand Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 19:28 +0000
      Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 08:21 +0000
        Re: error message I don understand Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 11:10 +0200
          Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-17 10:20 +0100
            Re: error message I don understand Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 09:01 -0400
          Re: error message I don understand Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 09:00 -0400
            Re: error message I don understand Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 14:53 +0000
              Re: error message I don understand dougatmilmacdotcom@example.com (Doug Miller) - 2011-07-17 16:26 +0000
              Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 16:11 +0000
          Re: error message I don understand Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 14:52 +0000
            Re: error message I don understand Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 17:19 +0200
              Re: error message I don understand The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-18 17:01 +0100
          Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 16:07 +0000
            Re: error message I don understand Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 18:27 +0200
              Re: error message I don understand "liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com" <liebling.kreuzberg@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 20:12 +0000
    Re: error message I don understand August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 14:55 +0200
      Re: error message I don understand Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 09:03 -0400
        Re: error message I don understand August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 16:50 +0200
          Re: error message I don understand Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 12:26 -0400
          Re: error message I don understand "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2011-07-17 11:31 -0500
            Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 19:47 +0200
              Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 14:12 -0400
              Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2011-07-17 13:26 -0500
              Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2011-07-17 20:23 +0100
                Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-17 20:50 +0100
                  Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2011-07-17 15:17 -0500
                    Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-17 21:21 +0100
                    Re: Nasty language semantics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 18:17 +0200
                  Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2011-07-17 23:06 +0100
                    Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 00:48 +0200
                      Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 19:23 -0400
                        Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 01:51 +0200
                          Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-07-17 21:18 -0400
                      Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2011-07-18 09:22 +0100
                        Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2011-07-18 10:57 -0500
          Re: error message I don understand Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 17:55 +0200
            Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand) August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 20:31 +0200
              Re: Nasty language semantics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 21:29 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#2600 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <ivv775$egh$1@dont-email.me>,
> August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-07-17 18:31, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:50:28 +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2011-07-17 15:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This isn't mathematics - it is programming, as people have told you
>> >>> before. If you want mathematics, get a chalkboard.
>> >>
>> >> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
>> >> denote (surprise) equality.
>> >
>> > Very few that use it alone.
>>
>> Pascal, Modula-2, Eiffel and Ada all use `=' for equality and `:=' for 
>> assignment.
> 
> A good enough reason not to use these languages.
> 

The chief reason I gave up on Pascal after spending 4 hours trying to 
make a variable length bitfield containing potentially different sorts 
of entities depending on what was in the first few bits...into some form 
of syntax that made it usable, was that in the end rewriting the whole 
program in C was quicker than trying to make the existing Pascal work.

And that's the problem with these academic languages. When you meet a 
situation never envisaged in the academics brain that created them, you 
are basically shafted.

I don't care what the actual syntax is. AS long as its clear unambiguous 
and consistent.


Since I write assignment more often than comparisons, I slightly prefer 
  a=b as the assignment and a==b as the boolean comparison.

Aso why I hate loosely typed languages.

I want to know that '1.02' + '3.7' is reliably going to be either '4.72' 
or '1.023.7', not  implementation dependent, as I found in at least one 
Javascript example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2601 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

At Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:50:23 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <ivv775$egh$1@dont-email.me>,
> > August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2011-07-17 18:31, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:50:28 +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2011-07-17 15:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> This isn't mathematics - it is programming, as people have told you
> >> >>> before. If you want mathematics, get a chalkboard.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
> >> >> denote (surprise) equality.
> >> >
> >> > Very few that use it alone.
> >>
> >> Pascal, Modula-2, Eiffel and Ada all use `=' for equality and `:=' for 
> >> assignment.
> > 
> > A good enough reason not to use these languages.
> > 
> 
> The chief reason I gave up on Pascal after spending 4 hours trying to 
> make a variable length bitfield containing potentially different sorts 
> of entities depending on what was in the first few bits...into some form 
> of syntax that made it usable, was that in the end rewriting the whole 
> program in C was quicker than trying to make the existing Pascal work.
> 
> And that's the problem with these academic languages. When you meet a 
> situation never envisaged in the academics brain that created them, you 
> are basically shafted.
> 
> I don't care what the actual syntax is. AS long as its clear unambiguous 
> and consistent.
> 
> 
> Since I write assignment more often than comparisons, I slightly prefer 
>   a=b as the assignment and a==b as the boolean comparison.
> 
> Aso why I hate loosely typed languages.
> 
> I want to know that '1.02' + '3.7' is reliably going to be either '4.72' 
> or '1.023.7', not  implementation dependent, as I found in at least one 
> Javascript example.

Javascript's main problem here is using a common numerical operator (+)
as a string operator as will AND allowing numbers to promoted (or
demoted) to strings.  Javascript *could* have picked a different
operator for string concatenation, something less likely to cause
ambigious interpretation.

>                                                                 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933 / heller@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software        -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments


                

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2602 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:50:23 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <ivv775$egh$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-07-17 18:31, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:50:28 +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-07-17 15:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't mathematics - it is programming, as people have told you
>>>>>>> before. If you want mathematics, get a chalkboard.
>>>>>> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
>>>>>> denote (surprise) equality.
>>>>> Very few that use it alone.
>>>> Pascal, Modula-2, Eiffel and Ada all use `=' for equality and `:=' for 
>>>> assignment.
>>> A good enough reason not to use these languages.
>>>
>> The chief reason I gave up on Pascal after spending 4 hours trying to 
>> make a variable length bitfield containing potentially different sorts 
>> of entities depending on what was in the first few bits...into some form 
>> of syntax that made it usable, was that in the end rewriting the whole 
>> program in C was quicker than trying to make the existing Pascal work.
>>
>> And that's the problem with these academic languages. When you meet a 
>> situation never envisaged in the academics brain that created them, you 
>> are basically shafted.
>>
>> I don't care what the actual syntax is. AS long as its clear unambiguous 
>> and consistent.
>>
>>
>> Since I write assignment more often than comparisons, I slightly prefer 
>>   a=b as the assignment and a==b as the boolean comparison.
>>
>> Aso why I hate loosely typed languages.
>>
>> I want to know that '1.02' + '3.7' is reliably going to be either '4.72' 
>> or '1.023.7', not  implementation dependent, as I found in at least one 
>> Javascript example.
> 
> Javascript's main problem here is using a common numerical operator (+)
> as a string operator as will AND allowing numbers to promoted (or
> demoted) to strings.  Javascript *could* have picked a different
> operator for string concatenation, something less likely to cause
> ambigious interpretation.
> 
Or they could have defined the language carefully enough so that it was 
unambiguous, or allowed for explicit casting to make it so.


>>                                                                 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2619 — Re: Nasty language semantics

Robert Heller wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> I want to know that '1.02' + '3.7' is reliably going to be either '4.72'
>> or '1.023.7', not  implementation dependent, as I found in at least one
>> Javascript example.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such non-conforming ECMAScript 
implementation.  You (or the author of the example) must have been doing 
something else wrong.

> Javascript's main problem here is using a common numerical operator (+)
> as a string operator as will AND allowing numbers to promoted (or
> demoted) to strings.  Javascript *could* have picked a different
> operator for string concatenation, something less likely to cause
> ambigious interpretation.

There is no "Javascript"¹.

If you think about this, it would have been rather difficult for the 
designer of JavaScript (and, as a consequence, the ECMAScript committee) to 
choose another operator for concatenation that was widely accepted, given 
that he needed the language to resemble Java (hence the name, changed from 
LiveScript).  They could not use today's PHP's `.', because that was already 
taken for property access by Java (where PHP has the C++-ish `->' instead).  
They could not use `<<' etc, because that was used for SHL/SHR already.  And 
they could not have skipped the implicit type conversion because the 
language needed to be loosely typed (one design goal was a language that was 
flexible, and easy to use, compared to Java).

I wouldn't mind if they chose C++/Python's optional whitespace operator for 
concatenating string literals (that would have made writing/reading long 
strings in source code considerably easier), and PHP's variable expansion 
mechanism or Python's sprintf() mechanism (`%') for dealing with 
"concatenation" of non-string values (IIRC, efforts for built-in string 
templates in JavaScript 2.0 are underway).  (`%' would have been ambiguous, 
though, and might have meant a unwanted diversion from Java by introduction 
of a `mod' operator instead.)


PointedEars
___________
¹ <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
-- 
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
 -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2603 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

In article <ivvee0$eqg$1@news.albasani.net>,
 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <ivv775$egh$1@dont-email.me>,
> > August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2011-07-17 18:31, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:50:28 +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2011-07-17 15:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> This isn't mathematics - it is programming, as people have told you
> >> >>> before. If you want mathematics, get a chalkboard.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
> >> >> denote (surprise) equality.
> >> >
> >> > Very few that use it alone.
> >>
> >> Pascal, Modula-2, Eiffel and Ada all use `=' for equality and `:=' for 
> >> assignment.
> > 
> > A good enough reason not to use these languages.
> 
> The chief reason I gave up on Pascal after spending 4 hours trying to 
> make a variable length bitfield containing potentially different sorts 
> of entities depending on what was in the first few bits...into some form 
> of syntax that made it usable, was that in the end rewriting the whole 
> program in C was quicker than trying to make the existing Pascal work.
> 
> And that's the problem with these academic languages. When you meet a 
> situation never envisaged in the academics brain that created them, you 
> are basically shafted.

Pascal was not originally intended for other than academic use. As 
designed and implemented by Wirth, you couldn't even do compilation of 
separate modules for later linking together. Trouble is, students who 
learnt it then decided it was wonderful, went out into the wide world, 
and persuaded clueless software managers that this was the language to 
make more widely available.

Its worst defect was that strings of different lengths were different 
types. Also at the time academics were pushing the 
single-entry-single-exit bullshit, so there was no return statement.

It ended up as a plethora of different implementations, all getting 
around the limitations in different incompatible ways, which is probably 
what did for it.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2604 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On 2011-07-18 00:06, Tim Streater wrote:
> Also at the time academics were pushing the
> single-entry-single-exit bullshit, so there was no return statement.

I guess a certain level of maturity is required to appreciate some of 
these "restrictions". The return statement goes against the idea of a 
truly structured goto-less programming language. Wirth introduced the 
return statement (tried it) in Modula-2 and in the first versions of 
Oberon but replaced it with a return clause (single exit point) in 
Oberon-07. Here is a quote by Niklaus Wirth from "Differences between 
Oberon-07 and Oberon"*:

"The result of a function procedure was specified by a return statement. 
This form has the unpleasant property that the return statement is 
syntactically disconnected from the function procedure declaration, 
similar to the exit from the loop statements. It is therefore difficult 
to check, whether or not a function procedure declaration specifies a 
result, or perhaps even several of them. Now the result specification 
becomes syntactically a part of the procedure declaration, and vanishes 
as an independent statement form."


August


*http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/Oberon/Oberon07.pdf

-- 
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own 
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids 
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2605 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On 7/17/2011 6:48 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2011-07-18 00:06, Tim Streater wrote:
>> Also at the time academics were pushing the
>> single-entry-single-exit bullshit, so there was no return statement.
>
> I guess a certain level of maturity is required to appreciate some of
> these "restrictions". The return statement goes against the idea of a
> truly structured goto-less programming language. Wirth introduced the
> return statement (tried it) in Modula-2 and in the first versions of
> Oberon but replaced it with a return clause (single exit point) in
> Oberon-07. Here is a quote by Niklaus Wirth from "Differences between
> Oberon-07 and Oberon"*:
>
<snip>
>
>
> August
>
>
> *http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/Oberon/Oberon07.pdf
>

I guess a certain level of maturity is needed to recognize an academic 
language from one which is truly usable in the real world.

My guess is you've never worked on a real multi-programmer project in a 
business environment.  Or maybe not even a single-programmer project in 
a corporate environment.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2606 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On 2011-07-18 01:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> I guess a certain level of maturity is needed to recognize an academic
> language from one which is truly usable in the real world.
>
> My guess is you've never worked on a real multi-programmer project in a
> business environment. Or maybe not even a single-programmer project in a
> corporate environment.

I have worked in all kinds of constellations and seldom have I 
experienced a problem with the language at hand being too restrictive, 
quite on the contrary, obscure language features in combination with 
programmer "cleverness" (in the usual "power corrupts" sense) have given 
rise to several maintenance headaches.

August

-- 
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own 
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids 
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2607 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On 7/17/2011 7:51 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2011-07-18 01:23, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> I guess a certain level of maturity is needed to recognize an academic
>> language from one which is truly usable in the real world.
>>
>> My guess is you've never worked on a real multi-programmer project in a
>> business environment. Or maybe not even a single-programmer project in a
>> corporate environment.
>
> I have worked in all kinds of constellations and seldom have I
> experienced a problem with the language at hand being too restrictive,
> quite on the contrary, obscure language features in combination with
> programmer "cleverness" (in the usual "power corrupts" sense) have given
> rise to several maintenance headaches.
>
> August
>

What a way to sidestep the question.  You just confirmed my hypothesis.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2609 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

In article <ivvorv$19k$1@dont-email.me>,
 August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2011-07-18 00:06, Tim Streater wrote:
> > Also at the time academics were pushing the
> > single-entry-single-exit bullshit, so there was no return statement.
> 
> I guess a certain level of maturity is required to appreciate some of 
> these "restrictions". The return statement goes against the idea of a 
> truly structured goto-less programming language. Wirth introduced the 
> return statement (tried it) in Modula-2 and in the first versions of 
> Oberon but replaced it with a return clause (single exit point) in 
> Oberon-07. Here is a quote by Niklaus Wirth from "Differences between 
> Oberon-07 and Oberon"*:
> 
> "The result of a function procedure was specified by a return statement. 
> This form has the unpleasant property that the return statement is 
> syntactically disconnected from the function procedure declaration, 
> similar to the exit from the loop statements. It is therefore difficult 
> to check, whether or not a function procedure declaration specifies a 
> result, or perhaps even several of them. Now the result specification 
> becomes syntactically a part of the procedure declaration, and vanishes 
> as an independent statement form."

Mmm, and code becomes unreadable as a result, with lots of extra if-else 
nesting to try to ensure that from a given point where I would do a 
return, no more code is going to be executed in the function. Unreadable 
because I have to spend a long time convincing myself that no more code 
will, in fact, be executed.

I haven't used a goto since 1978 when I gave up writing FORTRAN. Oh 
wait, tell a lie, there was a period when I had to, since I was obliged 
to write in Pascal and there was no return statement. So I faked one by 
labelling the end of the function with 999: and then doing goto 999.

Thank God that piece of impractical nonsense has gone the way of the 
Dodo. Early return simplifies code; I regard it as my responsibility to 
ensure I return the right thing.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2620 — Re: Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:22:58 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> I haven't used a goto since 1978 when I gave up writing FORTRAN. Oh 
> wait, tell a lie, there was a period when I had to, since I was obliged 
> to write in Pascal and there was no return statement. So I faked one by 
> labelling the end of the function with 999: and then doing goto 999.

Something of Pyrrhic victory, some might say...

-- 
7. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill 
   me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, 
   "No." and shoot him. On second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."
        --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2615

August Karlstrom wrote:

> On 2011-07-17 15:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 7/17/2011 8:55 AM, August Karlstrom wrote:
>>> It is a very easy mistake to do if you are used to saner programming
>>> languages in which `=' has the standard mathematical meaning (this
>>> symbol has been used in mathematics to denote equality for some 500
>>> years).
>> This isn't mathematics - it is programming, as people have told you
>> before. If you want mathematics, get a chalkboard.
> 
> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
> denote (surprise) equality.

And I have found all programs written in any of those programming languages 
to be more difficult to maintain than the rest.  One such language is 
VBScript (which is particularly bad designed in other respects as well).  

It is no coincidence that all modern higher-level programming languages make 
a syntactical and not only a contextual difference between assignment and 
comparison (`=' means comparison in a VBScript `If' statement, but 
assignment in a standalone VBScript statement – why?), and that older ones 
tend to do not (but speaking of math, even Pascal, arguably one of the older 
ones, has `:=' and `=', respectively): Intelligent life is distinguished by 
its ability to learn from past mistakes.  For this is not only a maintenance 
problem; it also makes compiling such source code more complicated as the 
underlying grammar ends up being ambiguous.

I would always consider it a result of bad language design for a (built-in) 
operator to have such very different meanings.


PointedEars
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2622 — Nasty language semantics (Was: error message I don understand)

On 2011-07-18 17:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> August Karlstrom wrote:
>> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
>> denote (surprise) equality.
>
> And I have found all programs written in any of those programming languages
> to be more difficult to maintain than the rest.  One such language is
> VBScript (which is particularly bad designed in other respects as well).

That's because they have been badly designed in other respects as you 
mention.

> It is no coincidence that all modern higher-level programming languages make
> a syntactical and not only a contextual difference between assignment and
> comparison

Yes, that is a good thing.

> I would always consider it a result of bad language design for a (built-in)
> operator to have such very different meanings.

Agreed. The assignment symbol should ideally be a left arrow but as we 
all know it is not available on a standard keyboard or in the ASCII 
character set. I think `:=' is a reasonable alternative.

August

-- 
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own 
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids 
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2623 — Re: Nasty language semantics

August Karlstrom wrote:

> On 2011-07-18 17:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> August Karlstrom wrote:
>>> Don't be silly. There are several programming languages in which `='
>>> denote (surprise) equality.
>> And I have found all programs written in any of those programming
>> languages to be more difficult to maintain than the rest.  One such
>> language is VBScript (which is particularly bad designed in other
>> respects as well).
> 
> That's because they have been badly designed in other respects as you
> mention.

NAK.

>> I would always consider it a result of bad language design for a
>> (built-in) operator to have such very different meanings.
> 
> Agreed. The assignment symbol should ideally be a left arrow

NAK.  As was said before, this is programming, not math.

> but as we all know it is not available on a standard keyboard or in the
> ASCII character set. I think `:=' is a reasonable alternative.

So are `=', `==' and `===', if only for keeping the well-established C 
tradition (which makes it easier to learn yet another programming language, 
mind you).

But there is another option: a compiler could disallow or warn about 
assignment in conditional expressions if it was not obvious that this was 
intended (as indicated by another pair of parentheses around the 
assignment).  AFAIK, the Java compiler (javac) and the Mozilla JavaScript 
Validator include a switch to generate a warning.  PHP's JIT-compiler SHOULD 
also do this with the E_WARNING or E_COMPILE_WARNING bits set (but PHP 
5.3.3-7+squeeze3 with Suhosin-Patch (cli) does not.)


PointedEars
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web