Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #285840 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-24 13:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-03-24 14:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 13:12 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-24 18:29 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 12:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 16:25 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 13:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 04:27 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 08:01 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 11:08 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 11:22 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 14:49 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 13:14 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:24 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 14:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:50 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 14:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:04 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-28 01:04 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 15:54 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 15:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:45 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 18:53 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:47 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:25 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 23:11 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 18:15 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 07:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-26 10:36 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 11:04 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-27 03:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:10 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 09:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 10:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 13:27 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 14:01 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 14:53 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:21 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 21:42 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 11:45 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 12:40 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 15:24 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 17:48 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 18:00 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 23:10 +0100
Silly subject redacted Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Silly subject redacted Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:46 -0400
Re: Silly subject redacted GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:13 -0600
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:44 -0400
Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:13 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:08 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:19 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 15:09 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 12:16 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 13:17 -0700
PDP-11 Unix and c began in 1972. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-03-26 19:00 -0700
Re: PDP-11 Unix and c began in 1972. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:10 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 09:50 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 18:14 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 11:46 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:21 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 21:34 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 13:59 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-27 18:41 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 10:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 11:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:47 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-04 10:16 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:33 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-04 15:56 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-05 12:41 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-05 12:56 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-05 16:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-06 13:15 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-04 08:33 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 20:00 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 19:59 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-05 00:29 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 20:47 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-05 00:59 +0000
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:19 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 11:06 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 11:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 13:17 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:41 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:44 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 08:21 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:16 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 13:18 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:54 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 13:23 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:39 -0500
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:49 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 20:14 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:55 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-03-24 13:07 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 13:26 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 11:51 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 16:26 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-24 13:52 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-24 22:00 +0100
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 15:30 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-24 17:09 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 15:43 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 10:57 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:42 -0400
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 16:20 -0700
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:12 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 22:32 -0500
Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-27 06:10 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:09 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:02 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:06 -0600
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 07:42 -0500
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 09:08 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:26 -0400
Re: Snit says cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'!?!? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 14:04 -0600
Re: Snit, when you say cola trusts your views on 'pretty much any topic'... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 14:41 -0700
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EBA49.49462%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286709 |
On 3/30/15, 4:51 AM, in article
21f9a671-b8cc-41ad-8762-3077d889fc98@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:11:05 AM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
>> On 3/26/2015 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>>> [...] Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like
>>>>>> Windows and VB does it).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist?
>>>>
>>>> IMO, probably because it less technically challenging to accomplish
>>>> in comparison to 'case-insensitive while being case-preserving'.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one is merely the
>>>> observation that programmers are lazy when they can get away with
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I see that as an oversimplification. Language is about expression,
>>> while it's fun to toss around the age old idea that a programmer is
>>> inherently lazy, the ones who write computer languages and complex
>>> programs clearly aren't. It takes a lot of work to get really good
>>> with this stuff and, once you are, I suspect the idea of limiting
>>> your expression probably holds little appeal if you're sitting down
>>> to create a computer language you'd like people to adopt.
>>
>>
>> 'limits your expression'? BWA!!! Show me some examples.
>>
>> I think it's much more work to remember the distinction and usage of two
>> variables or files or folders which are spelled the same but have a
>> different case than it is to create a 2nd variable or file or folder
>> with a different name.
>>
>> I wonder how often programmers avail themselves of case-sensitivity by
>> utilizing the same spelling with a different case. I'd guess very
>> rarely if at all. In that case, the case for case-sensitivity is a
>> cold-case...
>
> Why stop there then? If I was reading myVar and myVra I would assume
> you just had a typo, so why not let compilers do the same? Or make it
> dictionary based. szMyReceipt and szMyReciept obviously refer to the
> same thing, so why should that be flagged as an error regardless of case?
The argument here is case insensitivity does not solve all naming problems,
only a major class of common ones, so it is not worth having.
> Case sensitivity, to me, is the same as having an eol marker for the
> code like a semicolon. It's about precision. Good programmers are going
> to have a good design and well written code regardless of case sensitivity.
> And if you're working alone, who cares (the Relf approach). But in a team
> setting you're going to have experienced people and fresh college kids
> who think they know everything. That's why I think it's important for a
> strict interpretation of the code. Any typos will be flagged. A line
> of code doesn't end until you declare it to have ended. To me, engineering
> requires strictness.
Case insensitivity does not eliminate the need to be careful in your coding!
> The cases brought up (including Snit's so called "expert") are so
> outrageous that they are virtually impossible. It would require
> declarations in the same scope by multiple programmers of variables with
> only case differing, and absolutely no design or review ever until the work
> is "done." Or working for months or years without ever compiling code
> and then failing to have a find and replace. I've never even heard
> of problems like that in a professional setting, although I'm sure
> some amateurs have screwed themselves before, but that will happen anyway.
It is also backed my many different colleges. In fact, EVERY example of ANY
college actually showing they have a class where they take a stand on this
showed they understood the issue. I an re-list every college again, but the
basic idea they shared was this:
-----
Case sensitivity
- Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different)
* Names in the C-based languages are case sensitive
* Names in others are not
* Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
-----
Case sensitivity
* Disadvantage:
- readability (names that look alike are different)
- writability (must remember exact spelling)
-----
I posted a LOT more. I also posted a summary:
In support of case insensitivity:
* every college we can find
* every university we can find
* every source found through Google Scholar
* and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement
* a whole list of specific affects to back the view
In support of case sensitivity:
* a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C!
* popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
* code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used
* makes interfacing with other common languages.
If you think I left some out please let me know what they are.
> Science has many aspects that are case sensitive. A physicist will
> see kg and kG as two very different things. Sure, you could say that
> kg means k multiplied by the gravitational constant and then people
> will understand you. But I can also say "Dem peanut butter and
> 'mato sandwiches taste real good" and be understood. Understanding
> doesn't mean it's correct. Case sensitivity dictates a precision
> and strictness that good engineering requires.
None of this implies you should have a case sensitive programming
language... you are just noting that when you do it is HARDER for developers
and then trying to say this is a good thing because it teaches discipline.
Having them all learn to type with their toes would also require an added
level of discipline. So what?
> Using a file system is not engineering so that's a different beast
> and I'm not sure why it gets lumped in together.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68514e5b-1060-4fc7-944d-59b0cc7f8a03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286733 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 11:31:13 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > > It is also backed my many different colleges. I showed that every single one you listed taught only case sensitive languages to incoming students. Your support of each is hilariously one-sided and incomplete, even based on posts in this newsgroup. It's not worth correcting again since you just toss aside arguments you don't like. > > None of this implies you should have a case sensitive programming > language... you are just noting that when you do it is HARDER for developers > and then trying to say this is a good thing because it teaches discipline. How is it harder? If I make a mistake, it is flagged, and takes two seconds to fix. Problems due to sloppy coding and design aren't quite so easy. It doesn't teach discipline, it enforces it. I don't want a c'est la vie attitude when it comes to building bridges, and I don't want one in software engineering either. > Having them all learn to type with their toes would also require an added > level of discipline. So what? A strawman. A strawman that doesn't even work since it would require no additional engineering discipline, and wouldn't enforce any either. Only physiological. Try again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EC59B.49470%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286738 |
On 3/30/15, 9:02 AM, in article 68514e5b-1060-4fc7-944d-59b0cc7f8a03@googlegroups.com, "cc" <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 11:31:13 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >> >> It is also backed my many different colleges. > > I showed that every single one you listed taught only case sensitive > languages to incoming students. Given that this was NEVER in dispute so what? Really? So what? I am sure they also all use QWERTY keyboards as their norm. Does this prove QWERTY is the best? What point are you even trying to make by repeatedly noting they teach languages nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied they do not? Well, other than to deflect the conversation. THAT is your point. > Your support of each is hilariously one-sided and incomplete, even > based on posts in this newsgroup. It's not worth correcting again since > you just toss aside arguments you don't like. Ah, such deep reasoning on your part! LOL! >> None of this implies you should have a case sensitive programming >> language... you are just noting that when you do it is HARDER for developers >> and then trying to say this is a good thing because it teaches discipline. > > How is it harder? Already covered. Repeatedly. And in the material you snipped. Not playing your game where you snip the answer to your question and then ask it. It is idiotic. Read the post you responded to. ... >> Having them all learn to type with their toes would also require an added >> level of discipline. So what? > > A strawman. Are you denying it would take more discipline to learn to type code with your toes? > A strawman that doesn't even work since it would require no > additional engineering discipline, and wouldn't enforce any either. Good to see your support comes down to wanting to make it HARDER for developers because you think this is somehow good for them. What nonsense. > Only physiological. Try again. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286740 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:19:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > On 3/30/15, 9:02 AM, in article > 68514e5b-1060-4fc7-944d-59b0cc7f8a03@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How is it harder? > > Already covered. Right. It's not harder. > >> Having them all learn to type with their toes would also require an added > >> level of discipline. So what? > > > > A strawman. > > Are you denying it would take more discipline to learn to type code with > your toes? > Engineering discipline? Yes. You wouldn't be any more of a competent engineer by typing with your toes. You would be a more competent toe typist. Strawman that doesn't work. The typing (by fingers, toes, brainwaves, or whatever you want) is not the strictness I'm interested in. > > A strawman that doesn't even work since it would require no > > additional engineering discipline, and wouldn't enforce any either. > > Good to see your support comes down to wanting to make it HARDER for > developers because you think this is somehow good for them. > > What nonsense. It is not harder for developers. And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying that. I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts. > > > Only physiological. Try again. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13ECFCD.49480%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286749 |
On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article
4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:19:32 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 3/30/15, 9:02 AM, in article
>> 68514e5b-1060-4fc7-944d-59b0cc7f8a03@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How is it harder?
>>
>> Already covered.
>
> Right. It's not harder.
This is your tactic: you see a response to a question, snip the response,
then ASK the question as if it was not responded to, giving your own
non-supported response.
In other words you lie.
I provided links for each and everyone one of these elsewhere. This has been
going on so long with you just snipping and denying that some are now broken
links. Just idiotic:
--------
* Every college and university found to take a stance on the issue
(I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask):
Clark Atlanta University
Dublin City University
Eastern Michigan University
GeorgeTown University
Ithaca College
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Illinois University
University of Hawaii
University of Maine
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Virginia Tech
Western Michigan University
* Every source found through Google Scholar:
Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++
Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader,
and John B. Hanks
<http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF>
The case for Ada at the USAF academy
Abstract available here:
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430>
* Every blogger writing about the topic:
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110>
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114>
<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114>
<http://goo.gl/g8FbNF>
<http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn>
Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than
the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single
counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected
to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else
will.
And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those
who find it convenient to trump all the others. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile you have what in response?
Uncontested claims that colleges teach languages nobody said they did not.
So?
Claims that case sensitivity makes it harder for developers so this teaches
discipline. So?
Really, what support do you have?
Remember: I have no dog in this race. If the evidence shows a benefit to
case sensitivity I am all for it. But for crying out loud, if the biggest
supporters of have nothing of value to add why should anyone believe them?
...
>>> A strawman that doesn't even work since it would require no
>>> additional engineering discipline, and wouldn't enforce any either.
>>
>> Good to see your support comes down to wanting to make it HARDER for
>> developers because you think this is somehow good for them.
>>
>> What nonsense.
>
> It is not harder for developers.
But it requires more from them.
What?
You cannot even keep your arguments consistent.
> And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying that.
Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How
is that not making things harder? And it does so with no benefit you can
name.
But it makes them disciplined.
ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ
ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ. Şᴑᕈ Ңᴑա աᴑulᖙ ¡ϯ Ϧҿ ɑ ϦҿทҿҒ¡ϯᕈ
⟙իɑϯ ¡ຮ ϯիҿ զuҿຮϯ¡ᴑท ɑทᖙ ϯիҿ ᴑทҿ ӳᴑu իɑνҿ ทᴑ ɑทຮաҿr Ғᴑr.
> I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering
> disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts.
If you do not want to take shortcuts then learn machine code. Everything
else is a shortcut, right?
I mean, really, do you know ANYTHING about what you are talking about?
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <566c03b4-0a99-4ddb-beef-e8ca0c71e1e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286756 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article > 4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It is not harder for developers. > > But it requires more from them. > > What? It requires a compiler reporting an error. It doesn't require anything additional from a developer. DFS is a VB programmer, and a good one from all accounts. I can guarantee you he doesn't mix cases unless it's an accident. He is not producing an unreadable mess like Relf. It's no different for C programmers. Except in the case of a rare typo, the compiler will flag it and you can fix it. And I'm sure when DFS is going back over his code, if he catches the mixed case, he fixes it. Neither one is easier or harder, it's just enforced in one case, by a compiler/interpreter and in a few keystrokes by an experienced person all instances are fixed. > > > And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying that. > > Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How > is that not making things harder? It *provides* additional engineering discipline. It doesn't require anything. > And it does so with no benefit you can > name. More rigid engineering isn't a benefit? Okay. I guess it depends on your personality maybe, but I'm all for specificity and strictness in engineering and science. And in this case, it would not restrict creativity or any art. Beautiful structures have been engineered using a very strict set of rules for safety and best practices. Why do you think there are drafting standards (note I'm not actually asking, it's rhetorical)? Not to mention all the additional benefits mentioned by myself and others that you conveniently leave off your list. > But it makes them disciplined. > > ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ > ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ. No it would not. What is "engineering" about reading or writing that text? Another strawman that fails. > > > I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering > > disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts. > > If you do not want to take shortcuts then learn machine code. Everything > else is a shortcut, right? > No, not everything else is a shortcut, just like CAD is not a shortcut. Any other words you want to put in my mouth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EE8A0.494B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286782 |
On 3/30/15, 11:19 AM, in article
566c03b4-0a99-4ddb-beef-e8ca0c71e1e1@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article
>> 4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is not harder for developers.
>>
>> But it requires more from them.
>>
>> What?
>
> It requires a compiler reporting an error. It doesn't require
> anything additional from a developer.
Case errors can lead to a lot more than that... esp. in languages where you
do not explicitly define variables. As has been covered. As you snip.
...
>>> And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying
>>> that.
>>
>> Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How
>> is that not making things harder?
>
> It *provides* additional engineering discipline. It doesn't require
> anything.
How does it provide this discipline? Even for you that is an absurd comment.
>> And it does so with no benefit you can name.
>>
> More rigid engineering isn't a benefit?
>
Making things harder to prove you have discipline is not a benefit.
> Okay. I guess it depends on
> your personality maybe, but I'm all for specificity and strictness
> in engineering and science.
An nothing about case insensately is against this. As covered. And as you
snipped.
Are you next going to go back to bragging how you figured out colleges teach
case sensitive languages? LOL!
You made a complete idiot of yourself on that and on this whole topic.
...
>> But it makes them disciplined.
>>
>> ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ
>> ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ.
>
> No it would not. What is "engineering" about reading or writing that
> text? Another strawman that fails.
If they had to learn to type like that to code it would take a lot of
discipline.
>>> I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering
>>> disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts.
>>
>> If you do not want to take shortcuts then learn machine code. Everything
>> else is a shortcut, right?
>
> No, not everything else is a shortcut, just like CAD is not a shortcut.
> Any other words you want to put in my mouth?
Higher level programming is a shortcut to making machine code. You say you
do not want to take shortcuts... so why not program in machine code. Imagine
the "discipline" that would require to do it well for modern, large
programs.
You could be the best in the world!
And, posted so you can run from it again in fear - because you have no
honest answer:
In support of case insensitivity:
* every college we can find
* every university we can find
* every source found through Google Scholar
* and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement
* a whole list of specific affects to back the view
In support of case sensitivity:
* a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C!
* popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)!
* code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used
* makes interfacing with other common languages.
If you think I left some out please let me know what they are.
From an older post:
--------
* Every college and university found to take a stance on the issue
(I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask):
Clark Atlanta University
Dublin City University
Eastern Michigan University
GeorgeTown University
Ithaca College
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Illinois University
University of Hawaii
University of Maine
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Virginia Tech
Western Michigan University
* Every source found through Google Scholar:
Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++
Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader,
and John B. Hanks
<http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF>
The case for Ada at the USAF academy
Abstract available here:
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430>
* Every blogger writing about the topic:
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110>
<http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114>
<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114>
<http://goo.gl/g8FbNF>
<http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn>
Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than
the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single
counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected
to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else
will.
And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those
who find it convenient to trump all the others. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------
And the links for the colleges I refer to above (and from another post):
---------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~mahe/252/notes/ch5.ppt>
<http://www.ithaca.edu/barr/Student/CS321/Slides/Ch5.ppt>
<https://cs.wmich.edu/~gupta/teaching/cs4850/sumII07/lecture%20notes/lec06-7
%20names%20bindings%20type-checking%20scope%200713-071607.pdf>
<http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d
oc>
<http://www.cis.cau.edu/courses/476/ppt/pl10ch5.ppt >
-----
Case sensitivity
- Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different)
* Names in the C-based languages are case sensitive
* Names in others are not
* Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed
case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
-----
<http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse452/Fall2004/Lectures/04-binding.ppt>
-----
Case sensitivity
* Disadvantage:
- readability (names that look alike are different)
- writability (must remember exact spelling)
-----
<http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~evett/ProgrammingLanguages/LectureNotes/ProgLa
ng4.pdf>
<http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3304/Spring00/notes/Chapter-4/Names.pdf>
<http://www2.cs.siu.edu/~rahimi/cs311/slides/Ch05.ppt>
-----
* Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different)
* Worse in Modula-2 because predefined names are mixed case (e.g.
WriteCard)
* C, C++, Ja va, and Modula-2 names are case sensitive
* The names in other languages are not
-----
<http://www2.hawaii.edu/~janst/313/slides/5.1%20Scope.ppt>
-----
* Disadvantage: readability
- names that look alike are different
* C++ and Java: predefined names are mixed case
- e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* Effects on writability?
-----
<http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/331/spring03/0101/lectures/finin5.ppt>
-----
* The first languages only had upper case
* Case sensitivity was probably introduced by Unix and hence C.
* Disadvantage:
Poor readability, since names that look alike to a human are
different
* Advantages:
Larger namespace
Ability to use case to signify classes of variables
(e.g., make constants be in uppercase)
-----
<http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/Notes/UNIX/intro.html>
-----
Is case sensitivity a good thing? Or is it a flaw in UNIX (and
C/C++)?
Advantages of case sensitivity:
* More readable code. You know what to expect.
* More variables. num and NUM and Num
* Set up conventions, so that NUM probably refers to a
compile-time-coded constant, num is a real-time-changing
variable, etc. Quicker/simpler searches on file lists, since can
just search for the literal string.
* Better to be case-sensitive for passwords. - Larger space to
pick from. Harder to guess. Good to be "unforgiving" for security.
Not much return for such huge disadvantages:
* Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right.
* UNIX web servers everywhere have constant log of "404 Not Found"
which are really hits from people who noted a URL by hand and
didn't know it should be case sensitive. (Web server should
really have some logic to redirect of course.)
-----
<http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d
oc>
<https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/sbarakat/cs456/456-07-4up.pdf>
-----
Case sensitivity
- Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different)
* Worse in C++ and Java because predefined names are mixed case
(e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException)
* In C, however, exclusive use of lowercase for names.
- C, C++, and Java names are case sensitive -> rose, Rose, ROSE
are distinct names "What about Readability"
------
<http://umcs.maine.edu/~cmeadow/courses/cos301/cos301-5.pdf>
-----
* Case sensitive languages have a readability issue: names that
look alike are different
* Case sensitive languages that do not require variable
declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to
accidentally create a new variable
-----
Ouch. Come on, the consensus in COLA *must* be supported somewhere, right?
This is just getting silly - I truly am shocked not a single source can be
found in support of case sensitivity. Not at all what I expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34f8d36f-d0f2-4dbb-b8c5-8811f047a885@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286793 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:48:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > On 3/30/15, 11:19 AM, in article > 566c03b4-0a99-4ddb-beef-e8ca0c71e1e1@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > >> On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article > > >> > >> ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ > >> ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ. > > > > No it would not. What is "engineering" about reading or writing that > > text? Another strawman that fails. > > If they had to learn to type like that to code it would take a lot of > discipline. > But not "engineering discipline." Which is what I was referring to. Painting a picture takes discipline, but is also unrelated. If you're going to continue to focus on strawmen, or if you honestly believe that what body part you type with or what font you type in is somehow related to software engineering, then there's really no point in continuing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13F0810.494D7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286814 |
On 3/30/15, 1:23 PM, in article 34f8d36f-d0f2-4dbb-b8c5-8811f047a885@googlegroups.com, "cc" <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:48:57 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >> On 3/30/15, 11:19 AM, in article >> 566c03b4-0a99-4ddb-beef-e8ca0c71e1e1@googlegroups.com, "cc" >> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >>>> On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article >> >>>> >>>> ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ >>>> ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ. >>> >>> No it would not. What is "engineering" about reading or writing that >>> text? Another strawman that fails. >> >> If they had to learn to type like that to code it would take a lot of >> discipline. > > But not "engineering discipline." Which is what I was referring to. You have yet to say how a case sensitive language pushes engineering benefit in any way other than it makes things harder. That is NOT a good reason to have it. > Painting a picture takes discipline, but is also unrelated. If you're > going to continue to focus on strawmen, or if you honestly believe that > what body part you type with or what font you type in is somehow related > to software engineering, then there's really no point in continuing. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b558b36e-e894-4401-be70-45090e999d69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286793 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 3/30/15, 11:19 AM, in article > 566c03b4-0a99-4ddb-beef-e8ca0c71e1e1@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > >> On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article > >> 4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com, "cc" > >> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> It is not harder for developers. > >> > >> But it requires more from them. > >> > >> What? > > > > It requires a compiler reporting an error. It doesn't require > > anything additional from a developer. > > Case errors can lead to a lot more than that... esp. in languages where you > do not explicitly define variables. As has been covered. As you snip. > > ... > >>> And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying > >>> that. > >> > >> Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How > >> is that not making things harder? > > > > It *provides* additional engineering discipline. It doesn't require > > anything. > > How does it provide this discipline? Even for you that is an absurd comment. > > >> And it does so with no benefit you can name. > >> > > More rigid engineering isn't a benefit? > > > Making things harder to prove you have discipline is not a benefit. > > > > Okay. I guess it depends on > > your personality maybe, but I'm all for specificity and strictness > > in engineering and science. > > An nothing about case insensately is against this. As covered. And as you > snipped. > > Are you next going to go back to bragging how you figured out colleges teach > case sensitive languages? LOL! > > You made a complete idiot of yourself on that and on this whole topic. > > ... > >> But it makes them disciplined. > >> > >> ᖴᴑrϲ¡ทց ᖙҿνҿlᴑբҿrຮ ϯᴑ իɑνҿ ϯᴑ lҿɑrท ϯᴑ ϯӳբҿ l¡ĸҿ ϯի¡ຮ աᴑulᖙ ɑlຮᴑ rҿզu¡rҿ > >> ɑᖙᖙ¡ϯ¡ᴑทɑl ҿทց¡ทҿҿr¡ทց ᖙ¡ຮϲ¡բl¡ทҿ. > > > > No it would not. What is "engineering" about reading or writing that > > text? Another strawman that fails. > > If they had to learn to type like that to code it would take a lot of > discipline. > > >>> I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering > >>> disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts. > >> > >> If you do not want to take shortcuts then learn machine code. Everything > >> else is a shortcut, right? > > > > No, not everything else is a shortcut, just like CAD is not a shortcut. > > Any other words you want to put in my mouth? > > Higher level programming is a shortcut to making machine code. You say you > do not want to take shortcuts... so why not program in machine code. Imagine > the "discipline" that would require to do it well for modern, large > programs. > > You could be the best in the world! > > And, posted so you can run from it again in fear - because you have no > honest answer: > > In support of case insensitivity: > * every college we can find > * every university we can find > * every source found through Google Scholar > * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement > * a whole list of specific affects to back the view > > In support of case sensitivity: > * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! > * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! > * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used > * makes interfacing with other common languages. > > If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. > > > > > > From an older post: > -------- > * Every college and university found to take a stance on the issue > (I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask): > > Clark Atlanta University > Dublin City University > Eastern Michigan University > GeorgeTown University > Ithaca College > Michigan State University > Purdue University > Southeastern Louisiana University > Southern Illinois University > University of Hawaii > University of Maine > University of Maryland, Baltimore County > Virginia Tech > Western Michigan University > > * Every source found through Google Scholar: > > Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++ > Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader, > and John B. Hanks > <http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF> > The case for Ada at the USAF academy > Abstract available here: > <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430> > > * Every blogger writing about the topic: > > <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110> > <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114> > <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114> Those three are a decade old. > <http://goo.gl/g8FbNF> > <http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn> Not touching your BS. > Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than > the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single > counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected > to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else > will. > > And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those > who find it convenient to trump all the others. :) > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > And the links for the colleges I refer to above (and from another post): > --------------------------------------------------------------- > <http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~mahe/252/notes/ch5.ppt> Broken link. > <http://www.ithaca.edu/barr/Student/CS321/Slides/Ch5.ppt> Broken link. > <https://cs.wmich.edu/~gupta/teaching/cs4850/sumII07/lecture%20notes/lec06-7 > %20names%20bindings%20type-checking%20scope%200713-071607.pdf> A lecture from 2004? I wonder how long before this link is broken. > <http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d > oc> > <http://www.cis.cau.edu/courses/476/ppt/pl10ch5.ppt > FORTRAN I: maximum 6 COBOL: maximum 30 FORTRAN 90 and ANSI C: maximum 31 Ada and Java: no limit, and all are significant C++: no limit, but implementers often impose one b/c they do not want the symbol table in which identifiers are stored during compilation to be too large. Also, to simplify the maintenance of that table. The most "modern" language there is Ada (circa early 80s). They names only "look alike" if you're not paying attention; any decent editor renders this a moot point anyway. > ----- > Case sensitivity > - Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) > * Names in the C-based languages are case sensitive > * Names in others are not > * Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed > case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) > ----- > > <http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse452/Fall2004/Lectures/04-binding.ppt> Another 2004 lecture based on the same languages as above. > ----- > Case sensitivity > * Disadvantage: > - readability (names that look alike are different) > - writability (must remember exact spelling) > ----- > > > <http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~evett/ProgrammingLanguages/LectureNotes/ProgLa > ng4.pdf> -- Forbidden You don't have permission to access /~evett/ProgrammingLanguages/LectureNotes/ProgLa ng4.pdf on this server. -- > <http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3304/Spring00/notes/Chapter-4/Names.pdf> Same lecture material of the same languages. > <http://www2.cs.siu.edu/~rahimi/cs311/slides/Ch05.ppt> And again... > ----- > * Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) > * Worse in Modula-2 because predefined names are mixed case (e.g. > WriteCard) > * C, C++, Ja va, and Modula-2 names are case sensitive > * The names in other languages are not > ----- > > <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~janst/313/slides/5.1%20Scope.ppt> Man, that same lecture material really got around, didn't it?! I guess there was a store you could buy that sucker at. LOL! You're an idiot, Snit ;) > ----- > * Disadvantage: readability > - names that look alike are different > * C++ and Java: predefined names are mixed case > - e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) > * Effects on writability? > ----- > > <http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/331/spring03/0101/lectures/finin5.ppt> Same again... yawn. > ----- > * The first languages only had upper case > * Case sensitivity was probably introduced by Unix and hence C. > * Disadvantage: > Poor readability, since names that look alike to a human are > different > * Advantages: > Larger namespace > Ability to use case to signify classes of variables > (e.g., make constants be in uppercase) > ----- > > <http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/Notes/UNIX/intro.html> What's this supposed to show? I do see: "On Internet since 1987." At least he doesn't have the regurgitated lecture there ;) > ----- > Is case sensitivity a good thing? Or is it a flaw in UNIX (and > C/C++)? > > Advantages of case sensitivity: > * More readable code. You know what to expect. > * More variables. num and NUM and Num > * Set up conventions, so that NUM probably refers to a > compile-time-coded constant, num is a real-time-changing > variable, etc. Quicker/simpler searches on file lists, since can > just search for the literal string. > * Better to be case-sensitive for passwords. - Larger space to > pick from. Harder to guess. Good to be "unforgiving" for security. > > Not much return for such huge disadvantages: > * Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right. > * UNIX web servers everywhere have constant log of "404 Not Found" > which are really hits from people who noted a URL by hand and > didn't know it should be case sensitive. (Web server should > really have some logic to redirect of course.) > ----- > > <http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d > oc> Same thing again. > <https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/sbarakat/cs456/456-07-4up.pdf> Broken link. > ----- > Case sensitivity > - Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) > * Worse in C++ and Java because predefined names are mixed case > (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) > * In C, however, exclusive use of lowercase for names. > - C, C++, and Java names are case sensitive -> rose, Rose, ROSE > are distinct names "What about Readability" > ------ > > <http://umcs.maine.edu/~cmeadow/courses/cos301/cos301-5.pdf> There's one that actually differs but the languages being discussed are not any more modern. Maybe he still uses this (seems he did as of a few years ago) for 'historical' perspective. > ----- > * Case sensitive languages have a readability issue: names that > look alike are different > * Case sensitive languages that do not require variable > declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to > accidentally create a new variable > ----- > > > Ouch. Come on, the consensus in COLA *must* be supported somewhere, right? > This is just getting silly To have presented "evidence" consisting of a number of broken/forbidden links and a regurgitated lecture that looks like it was purchased from 'the Lecture Store' circa 2004 is what's silly here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13F079C.494D6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286815 |
On 3/30/15, 1:27 PM, in article b558b36e-e894-4401-be70-45090e999d69@googlegroups.com, "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: ... >>>>> And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How >>>> is that not making things harder? >>> >>> It *provides* additional engineering discipline. It doesn't require >>> anything. >> >> How does it provide this discipline? Even for you that is an absurd comment. And you have no answer for this. >>>> And it does so with no benefit you can name. >>>> >>> More rigid engineering isn't a benefit? >>> >> Making things harder to prove you have discipline is not a benefit. And you have no answer for this. >>> Okay. I guess it depends on your personality maybe, but I'm all for >>> specificity and strictness in engineering and science. >> >> An nothing about case insensately is against this. As covered. And as you >> snipped. >> >> Are you next going to go back to bragging how you figured out colleges teach >> case sensitive languages? LOL! Hey, at least you did not just do this again. LOL! ... >>>>> I want some enforced strictness and rigidity like all other engineering >>>>> disciplines, which also do not take shortcuts. >>>> >>>> If you do not want to take shortcuts then learn machine code. Everything >>>> else is a shortcut, right? >>> >>> No, not everything else is a shortcut, just like CAD is not a shortcut. >>> Any other words you want to put in my mouth? >> >> Higher level programming is a shortcut to making machine code. You say you >> do not want to take shortcuts... so why not program in machine code. Imagine >> the "discipline" that would require to do it well for modern, large >> programs. >> >> You could be the best in the world! And you have no answer to this. >> And, posted so you can run from it again in fear - because you have no >> honest answer: >> >> In support of case insensitivity: >> * every college we can find >> * every university we can find >> * every source found through Google Scholar >> * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement >> * a whole list of specific affects to back the view >> >> In support of case sensitivity: >> * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! >> * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! >> * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used >> * makes interfacing with other common languages. >> >> If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. >> >> >> >> >> >> From an older post: >> -------- >> * Every college and university found to take a stance on the issue >> (I have provided full links elsewhere - if you want them just ask): >> >> Clark Atlanta University >> Dublin City University >> Eastern Michigan University >> GeorgeTown University >> Ithaca College >> Michigan State University >> Purdue University >> Southeastern Louisiana University >> Southern Illinois University >> University of Hawaii >> University of Maine >> University of Maryland, Baltimore County >> Virginia Tech >> Western Michigan University >> >> * Every source found through Google Scholar: >> >> Advanced CORBA(R) Programming with C++ >> Essential C++ by Jarrell C. Grout, Robert G. Strader, >> and John B. Hanks >> <http://goo.gl/2AR9ZF> >> The case for Ada at the USAF academy >> Abstract available here: >> <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958430> >> >> * Every blogger writing about the topic: >> >> <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110> >> <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114> >> <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114> > > Those three are a decade old. So show something newer. What do you think has changed since then? >> <http://goo.gl/g8FbNF> >> <http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn> > > Not touching your BS. How does my LINKING to something make it mine? Comes down to you having no reasoned response. >> Now of course the final categories, bloggers, are less authoritative than >> the other two, but it is truly amazing how there is not a single >> counter-example that has been shown in *any* of the categories. I expected >> to find *some* reference disagreeing... and still expect I or someone else >> will. >> >> And if this does happen you can bet that one source will be deemed by those >> who find it convenient to trump all the others. :) >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> And the links for the colleges I refer to above (and from another post): >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> <http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~mahe/252/notes/ch5.ppt> > > Broken link. Right. This debate has been going on so long and you have been running so long some of the links have died. I quoted the relevant part, below. >> <http://www.ithaca.edu/barr/Student/CS321/Slides/Ch5.ppt> > > Broken link. See above. >> <https://cs.wmich.edu/~gupta/teaching/cs4850/sumII07/lecture%20notes/lec06-7 >> %20names%20bindings%20type-checking%20scope%200713-071607.pdf> > > A lecture from 2004? I wonder how long before this link is broken. Ah, so you wait years to respond to discussions hoping for the links referenced to die. What a great tactic you have there. >> <http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d >> oc> >> <http://www.cis.cau.edu/courses/476/ppt/pl10ch5.ppt > > > FORTRAN I: maximum 6 > COBOL: maximum 30 > FORTRAN 90 and ANSI C: maximum 31 > Ada and Java: no limit, and all are significant > C++: no limit, but implementers often impose one b/c they do not want the > symbol table in which identifiers are stored during compilation to be too > large. Also, to simplify the maintenance of that table. > > The most "modern" language there is Ada (circa early 80s). They names only > "look alike" if you're not paying attention; any decent editor renders this a > moot point anyway. What do you think has changed since then? Point to info you think refutes it. More modern info. I am open to it. >> ----- >> Case sensitivity >> - Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) >> * Names in the C-based languages are case sensitive >> * Names in others are not >> * Worse in C++, Java, and C# because predefined names are mixed >> case (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) >> ----- >> >> <http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse452/Fall2004/Lectures/04-binding.ppt> > > Another 2004 lecture based on the same languages as above. And something you cannot refute. OK. >> ----- >> Case sensitivity >> * Disadvantage: >> - readability (names that look alike are different) >> - writability (must remember exact spelling) >> ----- >> >> >> <http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~evett/ProgrammingLanguages/LectureNotes/ProgLa >> ng4.pdf> > > -- > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access > /~evett/ProgrammingLanguages/LectureNotes/ProgLa ng4.pdf on this server. > -- I quoted the relevant text. You have no response. Got it. >> <http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3304/Spring00/notes/Chapter-4/Names.pdf> > > Same lecture material of the same languages. Right. Used in many places. Well accepted in universities. >> <http://www2.cs.siu.edu/~rahimi/cs311/slides/Ch05.ppt> > > And again... Right. >> ----- >> * Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) >> * Worse in Modula-2 because predefined names are mixed case (e.g. >> WriteCard) >> * C, C++, Ja va, and Modula-2 names are case sensitive >> * The names in other languages are not >> ----- >> >> <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~janst/313/slides/5.1%20Scope.ppt> > > Man, that same lecture material really got around, didn't it?! I guess there > was a store you could buy that sucker at. LOL! You're an idiot, Snit ;) Many colleges and universities are using this material. Right. In fact, ALL college / university classes where we can find any content seem to agree with the basics. And you have no response. That is a very strong point against you. >> ----- >> * Disadvantage: readability >> - names that look alike are different >> * C++ and Java: predefined names are mixed case >> - e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) >> * Effects on writability? >> ----- >> >> <http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/331/spring03/0101/lectures/finin5.ppt> > > Same again... yawn. That would make sense if you had given a reasoned response the first time! >> ----- >> * The first languages only had upper case >> * Case sensitivity was probably introduced by Unix and hence C. >> * Disadvantage: >> Poor readability, since names that look alike to a human are >> different >> * Advantages: >> Larger namespace >> Ability to use case to signify classes of variables >> (e.g., make constants be in uppercase) >> ----- >> >> <http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/Notes/UNIX/intro.html> > > What's this supposed to show? It shows pros and cons. How can you possibly miss that? > I do see: > > "On Internet since 1987." > > At least he doesn't have the regurgitated lecture there ;) > > >> ----- >> Is case sensitivity a good thing? Or is it a flaw in UNIX (and >> C/C++)? >> >> Advantages of case sensitivity: >> * More readable code. You know what to expect. >> * More variables. num and NUM and Num >> * Set up conventions, so that NUM probably refers to a >> compile-time-coded constant, num is a real-time-changing >> variable, etc. Quicker/simpler searches on file lists, since can >> just search for the literal string. >> * Better to be case-sensitive for passwords. - Larger space to >> pick from. Harder to guess. Good to be "unforgiving" for security. >> >> Not much return for such huge disadvantages: >> * Millions of programmer and user hours lost on case not right. >> * UNIX web servers everywhere have constant log of "404 Not Found" >> which are really hits from people who noted a URL by hand and >> didn't know it should be case sensitive. (Web server should >> really have some logic to redirect of course.) >> ----- >> >> <http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/galkadi/401/notes/chapter5.d >> oc> > > Same thing again. Right. And same running from you. >> <https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/sbarakat/cs456/456-07-4up.pdf> > > Broken link. So? I quoted the original and it was not broken when I first showed it to you... only broken now because it has taken you years to actually somewhat respond... and even then only very, very weakly. >> ----- >> Case sensitivity >> - Disadvantage: readability (names that look alike are different) >> * Worse in C++ and Java because predefined names are mixed case >> (e.g. IndexOutOfBoundsException) >> * In C, however, exclusive use of lowercase for names. >> - C, C++, and Java names are case sensitive -> rose, Rose, ROSE >> are distinct names "What about Readability" >> ------ >> >> <http://umcs.maine.edu/~cmeadow/courses/cos301/cos301-5.pdf> > > There's one that actually differs but the languages being discussed are not > any more modern. Maybe he still uses this (seems he did as of a few years ago) > for 'historical' perspective. So show a newer one. Oh. You have none. >> ----- >> * Case sensitive languages have a readability issue: names that >> look alike are different >> * Case sensitive languages that do not require variable >> declarations also have a writability issue: it's too easy to >> accidentally create a new variable >> ----- >> >> >> Ouch. Come on, the consensus in COLA *must* be supported somewhere, right? >> This is just getting silly > > To have presented "evidence" consisting of a number of broken/forbidden links > and a regurgitated lecture that looks like it was purchased from 'the Lecture > Store' circa 2004 is what's silly here. The links were fine when you were first shown them... and you have NO counter. You change the topic, snip, run for YEARS until links break, and babble about things like how people teach languages nobody said they do not. That is sorta the point. And now you know where I have shown: In support of case insensitivity: * every college we can find * every university we can find * every source found through Google Scholar * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement * a whole list of specific affects to back the view In support of case sensitivity: * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used * makes interfacing with other common languages. If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <974a5a49-c482-4572-a467-ee1a1f712c2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286818 |
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:01:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 3/30/15, 1:27 PM, in article > b558b36e-e894-4401-be70-45090e999d69@googlegroups.com, "Steve Carroll" > <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > >>>>> And I don't want it to be harder for developers, so you can stop saying > >>>>> that. > >>>> > >>>> Your argument is that it requires "additional engineering discipline". How > >>>> is that not making things harder? > >>> > >>> It *provides* additional engineering discipline. It doesn't require > >>> anything. > >> > >> How does it provide this discipline? Even for you that is an absurd comment. > > And you have no answer for this. > > >>>> And it does so with no benefit you can name. > >>>> > >>> More rigid engineering isn't a benefit? > >>> > >> Making things harder to prove you have discipline is not a benefit. > > And you have no answer for this. I wasn't addressing these things, fool... but thanks for, once again, proving you don't really have me kf'd ;) (snip) > >> * Every blogger writing about the topic: "Every" blogger, Snit? Up until 2004-5? LOL! > >> <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=110> > >> <http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/?p=114> > >> <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1114> > > > > Those three are a decade old. > > So show something newer. What do you think has changed since then? Start delving into some of that ol' web development you claim to be a "professional" at, you might then being to realize there are a ton of changes on the landscape. There are many instances where languages need to interface with the web in ways they didn't a decade ago, the web that is brimming with case sensitive languages. > >> <http://goo.gl/g8FbNF> > >> <http://goo.gl/5zT2Cn> > > > > Not touching your BS. > > How does my LINKING to something make it mine? Comes down to you having no > reasoned response. I gave a reasoned response. I have no idea what you linked to and I don't intend to find out... which is the same position anyone with a working brain who knows you should take. (snip) > > A lecture from 2004? I wonder how long before this link is broken. > > Ah, so you wait years to respond to discussions hoping for the links > referenced to die. What a great tactic you have there. Whined the weasel that posted broken links as "evidence" in a thread today in 2015. Hint: It's up to you that your "evidence" actually make something, you know, 'evident'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-04 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfoof1$ea3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286782 |
On 3/30/2015 2:19 PM, cc wrote: > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >> On 3/30/15, 9:44 AM, in article >> 4920cd31-ac33-4384-a560-57cfa1536d68@googlegroups.com, "cc" >> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> It is not harder for developers. >> >> But it requires more from them. >> >> What? > > It requires a compiler reporting an error. It doesn't require > anything additional from a developer. > > DFS is a VB programmer, and a good one from all accounts. Thanks for saying that. I was just OK, probably. I spent a lot of time developing MS Access apps (with Jet, Oracle and SQL Server backends) so I became a master at manipulating data and controlling the Access (and Excel) environments with VB and VBA. > I can guarantee you he doesn't mix cases unless it's an accident. I would never even think to do something like that. Storing different data in a 2nd variable with a different case spelling? Crazy. And I can't imagine why anyone else would either. owl showed some extremely contrived cases - Jobs vs jobs and MBps vs Mbps and Dick (his friend) vs dick (his hobby) - but I don't think a serious case can be made for case-sensitivity. I don't think VB ever allowed case-sensitivity. VBA in Access didn't - when you changed the case of a variable in the Dim statement, all uses of it changed at the same time. When you changed the case of a variable outside the Dim statement, it automatically changed back to the case as written in the Dim statement. Like a lot of people, I often used camelCase variable names with a prefix to identify the data type: iEmpCnt = integer var to count employees sSQL = string var to hold SQL statements
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fgyf9.a3fp3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #286709 |
cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:11:05 AM UTC-4, DFS wrote: >> On 3/26/2015 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> DFS wrote: >> >>>> [...] Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like >> >>>> Windows and VB does it). >> >>> >> >>> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? >> >> >> >> IMO, probably because it less technically challenging to accomplish >> >> in comparison to 'case-insensitive while being case-preserving'. >> >> >> >> Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one is merely the >> >> observation that programmers are lazy when they can get away with >> >> it. >> > >> > I see that as an oversimplification. Language is about expression, >> > while it's fun to toss around the age old idea that a programmer is >> > inherently lazy, the ones who write computer languages and complex >> > programs clearly aren't. It takes a lot of work to get really good >> > with this stuff and, once you are, I suspect the idea of limiting >> > your expression probably holds little appeal if you're sitting down >> > to create a computer language you'd like people to adopt. >> >> >> 'limits your expression'? BWA!!! Show me some examples. >> >> I think it's much more work to remember the distinction and usage of two >> variables or files or folders which are spelled the same but have a >> different case than it is to create a 2nd variable or file or folder >> with a different name. >> >> I wonder how often programmers avail themselves of case-sensitivity by >> utilizing the same spelling with a different case. I'd guess very >> rarely if at all. In that case, the case for case-sensitivity is a >> cold-case... > Why stop there then? If I was reading myVar and myVra I would assume > you just had a typo, so why not let compilers do the same? Or make it > dictionary based. szMyReceipt and szMyReciept obviously refer to the > same thing, so why should that be flagged as an error regardless of case? > Case sensitivity, to me, is the same as having an eol marker for the > code like a semicolon. It's about precision. Good programmers are going > to have a good design and well written code regardless of case sensitivity. > And if you're working alone, who cares (the Relf approach). But in a team > setting you're going to have experienced people and fresh college kids > who think they know everything. That's why I think it's important for a > strict interpretation of the code. Any typos will be flagged. A line > of code doesn't end until you declare it to have ended. To me, engineering > requires strictness. > The cases brought up (including Snit's so called "expert") are so > outrageous that they are virtually impossible. It would require > declarations in the same scope by multiple programmers of variables with > only case differing, and absolutely no design or review ever until the work > is "done." Or working for months or years without ever compiling code > and then failing to have a find and replace. I've never even heard > of problems like that in a professional setting, although I'm sure > some amateurs have screwed themselves before, but that will happen anyway. > Science has many aspects that are case sensitive. A physicist will > see kg and kG as two very different things. Sure, you could say that > kg means k multiplied by the gravitational constant and then people > will understand you. But I can also say "Dem peanut butter and > 'mato sandwiches taste real good" and be understood. Understanding > doesn't mean it's correct. Case sensitivity dictates a precision > and strictness that good engineering requires. > Using a file system is not engineering so that's a different beast > and I'm not sure why it gets lumped in together. Being able to use function names, variable names, and filenames differing only in case provides the flexibility to have simple, common-sense naming schemes. owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ ls b2B B2b mega.c owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ gcc -Wall -o mega mega.c mega.c: In function ‘main’: mega.c:22: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘b2b’ /tmp/ccPruksc.o: In function `main': mega.c:(.text+0x82): undefined reference to `b2b' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ grep "b2b" mega.c MBps=b2b(Mbps); owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ sed -i 's/b2b/b2B/g' mega.c owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ gcc -Wall -o mega mega.c owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ ./b2B 100 100 Megabits per sec = 12.5 Megabytes per sec owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ ./B2b 30 30 Megabytes per sec = 240 Megabits per sec owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ gcc -Wall -DDEBUG -o mega mega.c owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ ./b2B 12 inside b2B() variables: MBps=1.5 Mbps=12 12 Megabits per sec = 1.5 Megabytes per sec owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$ ./B2b 40 inside B2b() variables: MBps=40 Mbps=320 40 Megabytes per sec = 320 Megabits per sec owlt@thinkpad:~/code/mega$
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D139A1D6.491FF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286256 |
On 3/26/15, 10:36 AM, in article 2ca2dfd3-3864-4346-b968-f18dc20089b3@googlegroups.com, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: >> DFS wrote: >>> [...] >>> Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like >>> Windows and VB does it). >> >> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? > > IMO, probably because it less technically challenging > to accomplish in comparison to 'case-insensitive while > being case-preserving'. That and it is by habit. Sort of like QWERTY. We went over this before and the evidence showed: In support of case insensitivity: * every college we can find * every university we can find * every source found through Google Scholar * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement * a whole list of specific affects to back the view In support of case sensitivity: * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. > Yes, its an opinion based on Occam's Razor...this one > is merely the observation that programmers are lazy when > they can get away with it. Pretty much... but then so are typists. :) -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18c3b357-4a38-41d6-8c3b-aca100cf0477@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #286260 |
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 12:45:34 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 3/26/15, 10:36 AM, in article > 2ca2dfd3-3864-4346-b968-f18dc20089b3@googlegroups.com, "-hh" > <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> DFS wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> Case-insensitive and case-preserving is the best (like > >>> Windows and VB does it). > >> > >> Then why do so many case sensitive languages exist? > > > > IMO, probably because it less technically challenging > > to accomplish in comparison to 'case-insensitive while > > being case-preserving'. > > That and it is by habit. Sort of like QWERTY. Creating a language is one thing, adopting it for widespread use is quite another. Feel free to explain why these more expressive, case sensitive "*extra* work" creating languages have continued to be adopted *en masse* and for decades any time you'd like. Why are so many (all?) of the newer languages case sensitive? The answer is simple... the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. > We went over this before and the evidence showed: > > In support of case insensitivity: > * every college we can find > * every university we can find Yet, every school you'll find worth going to teaches... wait for it... case sensitive languages. What charlatans! > * every source found through Google Scholar > * and even every blogger - mind boggling to see such agreement Who did the searching, you? LOL! > * a whole list of specific affects to back the view Like the vast majority of languages created in the last, oh... 25 years, you mean? They are all case insensi... oh wait, they're mostly (all?) case sensitive. Your view: People just keep blindly keep creating computer languages with additional expressiveness not because they actually find it useful, it's because of a "habit"... 'historically, we've always done it like this'. Gee, your argument is just *so* compelling, Snit! I'm going to go toss all my case sensitive code right now and never use those terrible languages again ;) The reader of your view is supposed to forget the fact that, historically, people grew up with case sensitivity... not like it's a foreign concept. > In support of case sensitivity: > * a language designed to be backward compatible with C is a lot like C! > * popular equals best: go QWERTY and teaspoons (in the U.S)! > * code snippets showing case sensitivity can be used > > If you think I left some out please let me know what they are. If you're really interested in this, why not read some forums where conformation bias isn't your goal? But we know the answer, don't we? Because you're only interested in being "right". Your problem with that here is... this isn't a right or wrong scenario the way you're trying to paint it and 'appealing to authority' on a highly opinionated matter is what fools do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmh8qok.j8o.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #286267 |
On 2015-03-26, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 12:45:34 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 3/26/15, 10:36 AM, in article
>> 2ca2dfd3-3864-4346-b968-f18dc20089b3@googlegroups.com, "-hh"
>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Steve Carroll wrote:
>> >> DFS wrote:
[deletia]
>> We went over this before and the evidence showed:
>>
>> In support of case insensitivity:
>> * every college we can find
>> * every university we can find
Clearly you didn't search much.
[deletia]
I suspect that when it comes to language design, this "crucial issue"
doesn't even blip on anyone's radar. If you brought it up, everyone in the
room would probably look at you like you suddenly grew a second head.
They will be all going "Who let this amateur into the room!".
--
"If I give you a pfennig, you will be one pfennig richer and
I'll be one pfennig poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will |||
have a new idea, but I shall still have it, too." / | \
~ Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 17:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf1uq8$u47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286290 |
JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 2015-03-26, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 12:45:34 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> We went over this before and the evidence showed: >>> >>> In support of case insensitivity: >>> * every college we can find >>> * every university we can find *LMAO* All those colleges and universities likely teach C, C++, or Java... case-sensitive languages. Snit... the FORTRAN of trolls. :-D > Clearly you didn't search much. > > [deletia] > > I suspect that when it comes to language design, this "crucial issue" > doesn't even blip on anyone's radar. If you brought it up, everyone in the > room would probably look at you like you suddenly grew a second head. > > They will be all going "Who let this amateur into the room!". He's nothing but a somewhat clever k00k. Mad as a hatter. -- A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT. Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose valuable scientific objectivity. 2. BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES. Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the gentleness and reassurance he can get. 3. TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED. Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 18:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean |
| Message-ID | <mf1vg1$1pq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286304 |
On 2015-03-26 5:48 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: < a bunch of lies and bad jokes > You're an idiot, Chris AssStorm. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Chris AssStorm is a homoerotic version of Mr. Bean |
| Message-ID | <mf2036$42s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286307 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-26 5:48 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > > < a bunch of lies and bad jokes > > > You're an idiot, Chris AssStorm. > Defending that imbecile Snit Michael Glasser again, you cretinous POS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web