Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:03:27 +0000, Colin Fine
<news@kindness. demon.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You may well be right that it will become increasingly difficult to find
>systems that aren't case insensitive. But I've yet to hear a reason why
>this is to be welcomed, while I do know a couple of reasons not to
>welcome it.[/color]

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

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

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

[Tony Marston]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:nOKdneaa2_ GSODDeRVn-og@comcast.com. ..[color=blue]
> Colin Fine wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Well, it's a hell a lot more than you've done, isn't it? And since they
>>> created the language, they get to set the rules.
>>>
>>> It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
>>> majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.
>>>
>>> Progress ALWAYS has its detractors.
>>>[/color]
>> WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????
>>[/color]
>
> Because it's better, IMHO.[/color]

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

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

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:09:24 +0000, Colin Fine
<news@kindness. demon.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>WHY IS IT PROGRESS?????
>
>PHP5 is a vast improvement on PHP4 in a number of ways. But they could
>equally well have resolved the inconsistency between variable and
>function names by removing case sensitivity for the former.[/color]

I'd say that adding case-sensitivity breaks less code than removing
case-sensitivity would. Adding case-sensitivity in PHP might create a
alot of hard errors (calling functions with the wrong case, for
example) but it will never go silently. Removing case-sensitivity
from variables can easily create situations where you silently end up
with incorrect results.
[color=blue]
>You've chosen four popular languages and said, look they're popular.
>What about the hundreds of language you've never heard of. I have no
>doubt some of them had considerable merit.[/color]

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

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:48:06 -0000, "Tony Marston"
<tony@NOSPAM.de mon.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>By mixing case I mean mixing case in the same word. Some organisations like
>all upper case, some like all lower case, but NOBODY likes a mixture of case
>in the same word. That is the difference.[/color]

Ummm.. camelCase is used ALOT. In fact, camelCase is now becoming
the standard for PHP. avariableliketh isisveryhardtou nderstand.
itsMuchEasierTo SayThingsWithSo meCapitals.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> >> trouble will all caps or the first letter capitalized. What about
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> difference between setsLower() and setSlower()? To a human reader
>>>> >> those have different meanings,
>>>> >
>>>> >Not to me, they don't.
>>>>
>>>> So lets say we're in a case-insensitive language and the function I
>>>> described above is listed in the program with both those cases. Tell
>>>> me, please, what does that function do?
>>>
>>>The function name is listed only once, but it can be invoked in either
>>>upper or lower case.[/color]
>>
>> You didn't answer my question! -5 points for you![/color]
>
>You name me any language that has the same function name listed more than
>once in a different case.[/color]

What, you cannot image an application with both setsLower() and
setSlower() functions? Or at least something similar...
[color=blue]
>Any language that deliberately allows the same variable or function name to
>exist in more than one case, and to have different meanings for each
>combination of case would be immediately slammed as being a VERY BAD
>language.[/color]

Wow. You just said that every single modern programming language is
VERY BAD. Why should we listen to your opinions?
[color=blue]
>If a language enforces case-sensitivity by auto-correcting each
>name as you key it in, that is acceptable[/color]

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

Merry Christmas,

[Geoff Berrow]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Message-ID: <gqlrq1li73pspg e4k6cqcmje49muh 9n0c5@4ax.com> from Wayne
contained the following:
[color=blue]
>The last language that did that -- Visual Basic -- is now dead. It
>was case-insensitive but corrected the case to the declared casing.[/color]

Dead? How so?

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Wayne]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:03:55 +0000, Geoff Berrow
<blthecat@ckdog .co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Message-ID: <gqlrq1li73pspg e4k6cqcmje49muh 9n0c5@4ax.com> from Wayne
>contained the following:
>[color=green]
>>The last language that did that -- Visual Basic -- is now dead. It
>>was case-insensitive but corrected the case to the declared casing.[/color]
>
>Dead? How so?[/color]

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZKdnVmWBt TBOTDenZ2dnUVZ_ sCdnZ2d@comcast .com...
>[color=green]
>>Colin Fine wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Nobody's given a convincing reason why case sensitivity is better. (The
>>>nearest to it is the stuff about the cost of doing the comparisons. That
>>>might have been an issue when Unix and C started up, but it's not very
>>>convincing today.).
>>>
>>>
>>>You may well be right that it will become increasingly difficult to find
>>>systems that aren't case insensitive. But I've yet to hear a reason why
>>>this is to be welcomed, while I do know a couple of reasons not to
>>>welcome it.
>>>
>>>Colin
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Neither I nor anyone else needs to "give a convincing reason...". The
>>bottom line is - that's the way things are, and it is supported by a vast
>>majority of programmers.
>>
>>However, there have been other reasons mentioned in this topic. But I
>>suspect none of them are "good enough" for you.
>>
>>And I haven't heard any good reasons why NOT to welcome it. Just saying
>>$Foo and $fOO shouldn't point to different variables doesn't make it. To
>>me they ARE different variables (although I wouldn't do this myself).[/color]
>
>
> Why wouldn't you do it yourself? Because it would lead to confusing and
> unmentionable code, that's why. Any language that allows a programmer to
> create confusing and unmaintainable code is a BAD language in my book.
>
>[/color]

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

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>Because it's better, IMHO.[/color]
>
>
> Exactly why is case-sensitivity better? No human language allows a word to
> have a different meaning just by canging its case, so why should a computer
> language be different, espeically when that difference allows for
> unmaintainable code?
>[/color]

I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried
to tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat
their arguments.

The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking
apples and oranges.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> And if the majority of programmers didn't think it was progress, it
>>wouldn't have caught on.[/color]
>
>
> Mere programmers don't have a choice, it's only the language authors that
> have a choice. And what was their reason for choosing case-sensitivity when
> all previous languages, whether human or computer, were entirely and
> completely case-insensitive? There is no good reason, which leads me to the
> conclusion that it was a STUPID MISTAKE that you are trying to perpetuate.
>
>[/color]

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

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

category.

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

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
> news:LYmdnewR-c7gxzDenZ2dnUVZ _sydnZ2d@comcas t.com...
>[color=green]
>>It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
>>majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.[/color]
>
>
> Are you saying that the vast majority of programmers would agree with a
> language that allowed the same variable or function name to exist in
> different mixtures of upper and lower case, and for each combination of case
> to have a different meaning? That would make it far easier to write
> unmaintainable code. Would that be a good or a bad thing?
>
>[/color]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tony Marston]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:4Lmdnd9W-pNukTPenZ2dnUVZ _tGdnZ2d@comcas t.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Neither I nor anyone else needs to "give a convincing reason...". The
>>>bottom line is - that's the way things are, and it is supported by a vast
>>>majority of programmers.
>>>
>>>However, there have been other reasons mentioned in this topic. But I
>>>suspect none of them are "good enough" for you.
>>>
>>>And I haven't heard any good reasons why NOT to welcome it. Just saying
>>>$Foo and $fOO shouldn't point to different variables doesn't make it. To
>>>me they ARE different variables (although I wouldn't do this myself).[/color]
>>
>>
>> Why wouldn't you do it yourself? Because it would lead to confusing and
>> unmentionable code, that's why. Any language that allows a programmer to
>> create confusing and unmaintainable code is a BAD language in my book.[/color]
>
> You can create confusing and unmaintainable code in ANY language - even
> COBOL. Case sensitivity has NOTHING to do with it.[/color]

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

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

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

[Tony Marston]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:TomdnQ0jLr yikzPenZ2dnUVZ_ tOdnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Because it's better, IMHO.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Exactly why is case-sensitivity better? No human language allows a word
>> to have a different meaning just by canging its case, so why should a
>> computer language be different, espeically when that difference allows
>> for unmaintainable code?
>>[/color]
>
> I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried to
> tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
> arguments.[/color]

Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
always been this way" is not an argument.
[color=blue]
> The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
> instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
> compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking apples
> and oranges.[/color]

Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and computer
languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they are
like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.

The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that had
existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to perform
case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> And if the majority of programmers didn't think it was progress, it
>>> wouldn't have caught on.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Mere programmers don't have a choice, it's only the language authors that
>> have a choice. And what was their reason for choosing case-sensitivity
>> when all previous languages, whether human or computer, were entirely and
>> completely case-insensitive? There is no good reason, which leads me to
>> the conclusion that it was a STUPID MISTAKE that you are trying to
>> perpetuate.[/color]
>
> Horse Hockey. EVERY programmer has a choice as to which language to use.[/color]

Most programmers have no choice. They have to use what their employer tells
them to use.
[color=blue]
> And quite frankly, most programmers I know would put you in the
> "old-timer-has-been-who-refuses-to-change-but-wants-everyone-else-to-change-to-suit-him"
> category.[/color]

I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I am
just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for 30
years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL case-insensitive,
and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
[color=blue]
> And quite frankly, I really don't give a damn what you think. So I'm not
> going to waste any more of my time.[/color]

Just as I don't give a damn what you think.

[Tony Marston]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
news:TomdnQwjLr xvkzPenZ2dnUVZ_ tOdnZ2d@comcast .com...[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:LYmdnewR-c7gxzDenZ2dnUVZ _sydnZ2d@comcas t.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>It really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The fact is the vast
>>>majority of programmers in this world disagree with you.[/color][/color][/color]

I think not.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Are you saying that the vast majority of programmers would agree with a
>> language that allowed the same variable or function name to exist in
>> different mixtures of upper and lower case, and for each combination of
>> case to have a different meaning? That would make it far easier to write
>> unmaintainable code. Would that be a good or a bad thing?[/color]
>
> They would agree with a languages that allows the same variable or
> function name to exist in different mixtures of case.[/color]

What do you mean by 'same'?

Are you saying that 'box', 'Box' and 'BOX' point to the same variable, or 3
different variables?

Are you saying that 'dosomething()' , 'doSomething()' and 'doSomeThing()'
point to the same function, or 3 different functions?

Which would lead to confusing and unmaintainable code, and shuld therefore
be avoided?
[color=blue]
> After all, 'a' is NOT the same character as 'A'.[/color]

It may not be the same combination of bits in a computer language, but to a
human it is the letter 'a' wit case bein irrelevant.
[color=blue]
> They even agree that each combination of case could have a different
> meaning.[/color]

I think not. Can you name me any computer language where the authors have
deliberately created their own variable and function names in different
mixtures of upper and lower case with a different meaning for each mixture?
Why not? Because it would be confusing. You have already stated yourself
that even though the language allows it you would not deliberately use
different case on the same word to give different meanings. Why not? Because
it would be confusing. So if there is a "feature" in the language that you
would not use, and you agree that usig it would lead to confusing code, then
why on earth do you want this "feature" to remain in the laguage. Why do you
continue to insist that such a "feature" is a good idea? It does not sound
very logical to me.
[color=blue]
> But they do not agree that it makes it far easier to write unmaintainable
> code. You can do that in ANY language.[/color]

Yes, but as languages continue to evolve those constructs which are
considered tooharmful, and which allow programmers to shoot themselves in
the foot and produce spagetti or unmaintainale code are gradually
eliminated. That is why the ALTER verb was removed from the COBOL standard.
That is why GOTO was removed from subsequent languages. Remember, I
programmed with COBOL for 16 years so I have direct experience of these.
[color=blue]
> In fact, I find mixed case makes code MORE maintainable.[/color]

How? You have already stated that you would never personally write code that
contained the same variable or function name in different mixtures of case,
so you are avoiding something which you consider to be MORE maintainable,
thereby producing code which is LESS mantainable. Your logic just boggles
the mind.
[color=blue]
> But I digress. You're not worth any more of my time.[/color]

That's funny. I have the same opinion about you.

[Anonymous]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Case-sensitivity is the whole point of this thread. Any language that has a
> feature which can be abused and which produces unmaintainable code is a BAD
> language. Any language that allows the same variable or function name to[/color]

Then any language is bad by your definition.
[color=blue]
> exist in different combinations of upper and lower case, and to give a
> different meaning to each of those combinations, is a BAD language. Case is
> irrelevant in all human languages, so it should be irrelevant in all
> computer languages.[/color]

That's not true. Anyone proficient in german can assure you that "Helft
den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln." means something
*completely* different! ;-)
[color=blue]
> Why do most modern languages exclude the GOTO statement? Because it is
> considered BAD.[/color]

Do they? The last time I checked all modern languages get translated to
machine code at compile time and all machine languages I know have an
equivalent to GOTO, which is usually called JMP in Assembler.

Bye!

[Anonymous]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Tony Marston wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I'm not going to bite on that one any more. Several people have tried to
> > tell you. Go back through this thread. I'm not going to repeat their
> > arguments.[/color]
>
> Their arguments don't hold water. Saying that "it is this way becauseit's
> always been this way" is not an argument.[/color]

I can agree with that, but...
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The one exception I will make - when computers can understand verbal
> > instructions (or even written instructions) like people do, then you can
> > compare computer and human languages. Until then, you are talking apples
> > and oranges.[/color]
>
> Humans communicate with other humans using human language. Humans
> communicate with computers using a computer language, one that translates
> high-level commands into low-level machine instructions. Human and computer
> languages thereore have a single point of origin, and to say that they are
> like apples and oranges just shows the depth of your ignorance.[/color]

.... now you are getting ridiculous. Human languages and computer
languages might share the same origin, but they du not share the same
purpose.

Human languages developed over time. Words changed meanings and
spelling, the grammar changed, too. On top of that humans communicate
differently than machines. We have a lot of words that communicate
vagueness or uncertainty. How much is 'a lot of'?

Computer languages on the other hand were designed from the bottom up
and their only purpose is to eliminate any vagueness in communication so
that a machine that only knows logical states (0 or 1) can follow a set
of instructions in a concise and repeatable way.

That is why computer and human languages are *very* different. If it
were not so nobody would need programmers.
[color=blue]
> The first computer languages were case-insensitive, just like human
> languages. Then some UTTER MORON decided to break with a tradition that had
> existed since human language first appeared in written form and insisted
> that the SAME word in a DIFFERENT case now has a DIFFERENT meaning. The
> reason for this was probaby because he was too stupid or too lazy to perform
> case-insensitive searches of variable and function names.[/color]

Complete nonsense. The first computer languages were case insensitive
because the first computers only had upper case letters. Human languages
on the other hand never were case insensitive.
[color=blue]
> I am not asking that all other languages be changed to suit MY taste, I am
> just asking that PHP not be changed to suit YOUR taste. I have worked for 30
> years with operating systems and compilers which were ALL case-insensitive,
> and I see no advantage in making the change, only disadvantages.
>[/color]

Don't make me laugh. I've been into computers for only about 22 years,
but I know computers like C64, VIC20 and PET and know why they were case
insensitive. Simply because they lacked lower case.

Bye!

[Oli Filth]

Re: Breaking backwards compatibility - good or bad?

Anonymous said the following on 25/12/2005 12:21:[color=blue]
> Tony Marston wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Why do most modern languages exclude the GOTO statement? Because it is
>>considered BAD.[/color]
>
>
> Do they? The last time I checked all modern languages get translated to
> machine code at compile time[/color]

Like C#, Java, PHP, VB, VBScript, JavaScript, Python and MATLAB do?

[color=blue]
> and all machine languages I know have an
> equivalent to GOTO, which is usually called JMP in Assembler.[/color]

Yes, but the low-level constructs are usually completely abstracted by
the high-level language, that's the point of a high-level language. The
machine-code that a compiler/interpreter produces/invokes is just a
method of implementing each of the high-level constructs - the fact that
there's a GOTO construct at the machine level has no influence on
whether there's a GOTO construct at the language level.


--
Oli