Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> some like all upper case,
[color=blue]
> My god. I wouldn't want my code constantly shouting at me. All upper
> case is harder to read, too.[/color]

In my current (non-PHP) contract the convention is that everything
which is part of the language (variable and function names) is
lowercase while evreything created by a programmer is in UPPER case.
Different organisations have different conventions, but if the compiler
is case-insensitive I really don't see the point. The argument that the
use of case *must* be consistent doesn't hold water. It's so low on the
scale of things which are *imporatnt* that it doesn't even register.

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> What I object to is being told that I MUST use one case or the other just to be[color=blue][color=green]
>> *consistent* with everyone else, especially when I disagree with their
>> reason for choosing one case over the other in the first place.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> The majority of programmers disagree with you on this. Consistency
> and conventions are preferred when working on a particular project or
> platform -- it cuts down on errors and allows one to convey greater
> meaning.[/color]

I disagree. The majority of programmers that I have worked with on
case-insensitive languages do NOT like being told that case is suddenly
important, that you must use one in preference to the other. It is like
saying that although the language allows you to do something either
*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
for no other reason than to be consistent.

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> By introducing case-sensitivity you are suddenly saying that $FOO and[color=blue][color=green]
>> $foo are now different, which goes against the grain of everything that
>> I have been taught since my first day at school way back in the last
>> century.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> A common Java idiom is:[/color]
[color=blue]
> Foo foo = new Foo();[/color]
[color=blue]
> The convention in Java is that class names begin with an upper-case
> letter and variables begin[/color]

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

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> Your second statement contradicts the first, but at last you agree that[color=blue][color=green]
>> having $FOO and $foo point to different things is not a good thing.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> It's not exactly a contradiction.. . I wouldn't allow both $foo and
> $FOO in the same program. In a case-insentive language that's
> allowed. I would want that completely disallowed.[/color]

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

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> That is what I have been used to for decades, and I see absolutely no[color=blue][color=green]
>> advantage in being forced to switch.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> So you're main argument is that it's not what you're used to -- so it
> should be changed. Isn't that the attitude that your entire article
> was arguing against??[/color]

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

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> You are talking about the *contents* of variables, whereas I am talking[color=blue][color=green]
>> about the *names* of variables. There is a BIG difference between the
>> two.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Umm, no I'm not. All languages are written in English and ASCII.
> Java, for example, is written in Unicode (UTF-8).[/color]

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

[tony@marston-home.demon.co.uk]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

>> No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world[color=blue][color=green]
>> that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Many many years ago it was done for compiler performance reasons. It
> does require lots of extra cycles to lower-case every single
> identifier in a large C application.[/color]

On all the hardware I have worked on for the past 30 years the extra
processing cycles for performng case-insensitive searches was never
deemed to be significant. Certainly not important enough to remove the
ability for case-insensitive searches.

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

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>I disagree. I have worked for decades with case-insensitive languages
>>>and I have always treated $FOO and $foo as the same variable.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO![/color]
>
>
> Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
> the unemployment queue.
>
>[color=green]
>> People have no
>>trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
>>difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>>those have different meanings,[/color]
>
>
> Not to me, they don't. When writing a program I am writing in a
> language that a computer understands, so I have to *think* like a
> computer. To a computer the case of a word is irrelevant, and so is
> it's pronunciation.
>
>[color=green]
>>to a case-insensitive compiler they are
>>the same.[/color]
>
>
> And to a person who has been using case-insensitive compilers for 30
> years they are the same.
>[/color]

Sorry, Tony, this last statement is incorrect.

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

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

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

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

Hey - get over it. It's called progress. Someone earlier pointed out -
in the 60's everything was upper case because punch cards only handled
upper case. I'll add that most printers only had upper case chars on
their chains. But we don't have that artificial limitation any more.
And case sensitivity can make programs more readable, if used properly.


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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>What I object to is being told that I MUST use one case or the other just to be
>>>*consisten t* with everyone else, especially when I disagree with their
>>>reason for choosing one case over the other in the first place.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>The majority of programmers disagree with you on this. Consistency
>>and conventions are preferred when working on a particular project or
>>platform -- it cuts down on errors and allows one to convey greater
>>meaning.[/color]
>
>
> I disagree. The majority of programmers that I have worked with on
> case-insensitive languages do NOT like being told that case is suddenly
> important, that you must use one in preference to the other. It is like
> saying that although the language allows you to do something either
> *this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
> for no other reason than to be consistent.
>[/color]

He didn't say "The majority of programmers that you have worked with on[color=blue]
> case-insensitive languages".[/color]

He said "The majority of programmers" - a much larger group. And I have
to agree with him.

I've also taught C, C++ and Java to COBOL programmers. Sure, they had
trouble getting used to the case sensitivity. But most got used to it.
Only those who refused to change didn't.

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

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>That is what I have been used to for decades, and I see absolutely no
>>>advantage in being forced to switch.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>So you're main argument is that it's not what you're used to -- so it
>>should be changed. Isn't that the attitude that your entire article
>>was arguing against??[/color]
>
>
> So why should I have to change MY programming habits just to match YOUR
> programming habits? Who put you in charge?
>[/color]

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

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

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

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

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

[Oli Filth]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 22/12/2005 16:38:[color=blue]
> tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:
>[/color]
<SNIP ARGUMENTS FOR CASE-INSENSITIVITY>[color=blue][color=green]
>>[/color]
>[/color]
<SNIP ARGUMENTS FOR CASE-SENSITIVITY>


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

Personally, I prefer the consistency that case-sensitivity imposes, but
that's probably because I spend most of my time using case-sensitive
languages. Whenever I see HTML, PHP or whatever where there's
inconsistency within the same file, then I immediately assume that the
author is lazy or sloppy, but again, that's probably down to what I'm
used to.


--
Oli

[Default User]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:
[color=blue]
> t...@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> My point is that for 30 years I have worked with tools which were
> >> totally insensitive to case, but some morons seem to think that[/color][/color]
> case >> is important.
>[color=green]
> > I guess C, C++, and UNIX are not particularly popular.[/color]
>
> They may be popular in some circles, but I have never travelled in
> those circles.[/color]

That's pretty dumb. That's like saying, "Fords are not popular cars
because I never drive them." Whether you like it or not, current
programming is dominated by C and C derivatives.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> For God's sake WHY! What problem existed in the
> >> case-insensitive world that needed to be fixed?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Ask Dennis Ritchie.[/color]
>
> No, I'm asking you. What problem existed in the case-insensitive world
> that could ONLY be solved by introducing case-sensitivity?[/color]

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


Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On 22 Dec 2005 08:05:57 -0800, tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> By introducing case-sensitivity you are suddenly saying that $FOO and
>>> $foo are now different, which goes against the grain of everything that
>>> I have been taught since my first day at school way back in the last
>>> century.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> A common Java idiom is:[/color]
>[color=green]
>> Foo foo = new Foo();[/color]
>[color=green]
>> The convention in Java is that class names begin with an upper-case
>> letter and variables begin[/color]
>
>Who gives a toss about how java does it? This is a PHP topic.[/color]

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

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On 22 Dec 2005 07:54:07 -0800, tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> But I didn't say $FOO or $Foo. I said $foo and $foO![/color]
>
>Any programmer who deliberately mixes case like that is a candidate for
>the unemployment queue.[/color]

So then, why should the programming language allow it?!?
[color=blue]
>The majority of programmers that I have worked with on
>case-insensitive languages do NOT like being told that case is suddenly
>important, that you must use one in preference to the other.[/color]

Ok... so let me get this straight. First you say that mixing cases
is bad and then you say that programmers don't like being told that
case is suddenly important. Those two things are contradictory.
Either case isn't important and programmers can mix case at will or
case is importantant. Give me one good reason why the language should
not enforce solid industry practices and keep poor unknowning
programmers out of the unemployment queue?
[color=blue]
>*this* way or *that* way from now on everybody MUST do it *that* way
>for no other reason than to be consistent.[/color]

You just argued for that consistency in the first line of your post.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> People have no
>> trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about the
>> difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>> those have different meanings,[/color]
>
>Not to me, they don't.[/color]

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

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

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On 22 Dec 2005 08:08:53 -0800, tony@marston-home.demon.co.u k wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Your second statement contradicts the first, but at last you agree that
>>> having $FOO and $foo point to different things is not a good thing.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> It's not exactly a contradiction.. . I wouldn't allow both $foo and
>> $FOO in the same program. In a case-insentive language that's
>> allowed. I would want that completely disallowed.[/color]
>
>So you are forcing your personal preferences upon everyone else. That
>sucks.[/color]

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

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