Forum unknown
· Programming
#Word Perfect Pulls Plug
85 messages in this thread
You obviously haven't seen the sort of abortions that are C's competitors in
the low-high-level systems programming language arena:
BCPL PL/M BLISS FORTH Structured Assembly
This last refers to a group of languages that do things like:
B=(HL) HL=HL+1 C=(HL) H=B L=C A=(HL)
Boy, did you pick the wrong fellow to say that to! <chuckle>
Boy, did you pick the wrong fellow to say that to! <chuckle>
Peter, surely you jest. I thought everyone on this forum knew that I
maintain about .5 megalines of BCPL code for Computer Automation. It's a
multi-tasking, multi-user, real-time, protected operating-system. BCPL has
several quirks, but case SeNsItIvItY is (praise the Lord) NOT one of them.
> I maintain about .5 megalines of BCPL code for Computer Automation.
I'm sorry.
All case insensitivity does for you is reduce the available name space by a
factor of 2^n or so. I must admit that there are facets of BCPL that I
like, but that's true of just about any language you can name. Can you look
at me with a straight face and tell me it's better not to have types and
data structures?
No I can't say I like NO structures, and the lack of types drives me batty.
By the way, if you can come up with an example in the English language of
where the capitalization is important (i.e. makes a difference in the
definition of the word) I might -repeat- MIGHT agree that case sensitivity
had some use. You'd better make that TWO examples, my debate teacher said
there is ONE example of everything. <smmiiille>
John — a proper name. john — a toilet. john — a prostitute's customer.
Only one example, I know, but it's early and I'm not awake yet.
John — a proper name. john — a toilet. john — a prostitute's customer.
Only one example, I know, but it's early and I'm not awake yet.
Not counting the words capitalized at the beginning of sentences,
you have used FOUR examples of "case sensitivity". As with my "FOUR", you
capitalized some words to show emphasis, which DOES change the way they are
"read".
I acknowledge your point, but the meaning of the words hasn't
changed. It is my contention that there are few words whose meaning
changes when you capitalize them, therefore makeing computer languages
case sensitive is both counterintuitive and perhapse counterproductive. It
seems that we will be stuck with it tho, the kids who invented C scr*w*d
us all. Please don't think I insist you anyone typing the words any way
they want, I just don't perceive the difference between open and Open and
OPEN when describing objects or actions in a program. I don't care if you
want to spell all of your '#define' thingies in all caps to remind you
that they are defines (although if that makes a difference to the program
something else is probably amiss), it is possible that I might even adopt
the style, but ramming it down everyones throat is something else again.
open – a function defined by the programmer Open – A predefined function,
usually #included-ed, and supported in library. OPEN – A macro.
I think it's a GOOD idea!
I agree with the convention of open, Open, OPEN. Forces the person to
put some measure of readability into the code without strangling you like
Pascal does.
but it doesn't force anything. You can use another word altogether when
defining a macro or constant, you can replace the Open with an open, etc.
What it does do is to force something on you that has no bearing on the
language and what it does for you.
but it doesn't force anything. You can use another word altogether when
defining a macro or constant, you can replace the Open with an open, etc.
What it does do is to force something on you that has no bearing on the
language and what it does for you.
I agree with the convention of open, Open, OPEN. Forces the person to
put some measure of readability into the code without strangling you like
Pascal does.
open – a function defined by the programmer Open – A predefined function,
usually #included-ed, and supported in library. OPEN – A macro.
I think it's a GOOD idea!
open is a C call, Open is an ADOS call, and OPEN is an equate. Makes sense
enough to me, beats the heck out of c_open, ADOS_open, and EQUALS_open for
my porpoises.
i discard the C call, since we are talking about things that were
foisted (fousted?) upon us by that language. i don't see that it is either
neccessary nor desireable to distinguish between 'equates' and system calls
by some peculiar (to me) capitalizations. since what you are talking about
here is different meanings for different contexts, perhaps we should use a
language that allows the same spellings to have different meanings
depending on the context inwhich they are found. i offer as an example the
using of the same name for different elements of different structures in
the C language. something that the C authors had to be ridiculed
mercilessly in public before it got put into the language.
Ming the Merciless
(disguised as Vic Wagner)
I dunno but, capitalization tends to grab my eye quicker than stuff with
the same case that is context sensitive.
-Jack-
I dunno but, capitalization tends to grab my eye quicker than stuff with
the same case that is context sensitive.
-Jack-
i discard the C call, since we are talking about things that were
foisted (fousted?) upon us by that language. i don't see that it is either
neccessary nor desireable to distinguish between 'equates' and system calls
by some peculiar (to me) capitalizations. since what you are talking about
here is different meanings for different contexts, perhaps we should use a
language that allows the same spellings to have different meanings
depending on the context inwhich they are found. i offer as an example the
using of the same name for different elements of different structures in
the C language. something that the C authors had to be ridiculed
mercilessly in public before it got put into the language.
Ming the Merciless
(disguised as Vic Wagner)
open is a C call, Open is an ADOS call, and OPEN is an equate. Makes sense
enough to me, beats the heck out of c_open, ADOS_open, and EQUALS_open for
my porpoises.
I acknowledge your point, but the meaning of the words hasn't
changed. It is my contention that there are few words whose meaning
changes when you capitalize them, therefore makeing computer languages
case sensitive is both counterintuitive and perhapse counterproductive. It
seems that we will be stuck with it tho, the kids who invented C scr*w*d
us all. Please don't think I insist you anyone typing the words any way
they want, I just don't perceive the difference between open and Open and
OPEN when describing objects or actions in a program. I don't care if you
want to spell all of your '#define' thingies in all caps to remind you
that they are defines (although if that makes a difference to the program
something else is probably amiss), it is possible that I might even adopt
the style, but ramming it down everyones throat is something else again.
Not counting the words capitalized at the beginning of sentences,
you have used FOUR examples of "case sensitivity". As with my "FOUR", you
capitalized some words to show emphasis, which DOES change the way they are
"read".
Vic,
2 examples:
Vic…your name
VIC…a computer
RAM…memory in a computer
ram…a male sheep
BASIC..a computer language
basic..the oposite of acidic, simple, fundamental, etc.
United States…this country
united states…a group of states who have gotten together on something
Well, so far I see acronyms (not English), and proper names (not English
words). I still haven't seen two English words that mean different things
when capitalized. Good challenge Vic!
If you'd be willing to open the discussion from "English usage", I can give
you a couple of valid reasons for upper/lower case.
It's rather difficult to look at a LIST and pick out the directorys,
sometimes. My solution to this is that all DIRECTORIES are capitalized,
while all Filenames are either lowercase or have only the first letter
capitalized. Lets the directories leap right out when you do a LIST.
In C, the standard procedure is to use all uppercase for MACROS and DEFINES,
and lowercase for everything else. This makes it immediately obvious when
you look at the code that PI and INDEX are constants, whereas picalc and
indexptr are variables.
Neither of these are required nor enforced, and they don't relate to your
challenge, but I thought I'd mention a couple of valid uses I've found.
rick, that is a fine use of the 'display' of upper/lower case being
useful. i don't hear/see you arguing that the system should require you to
type them in in uppercase to reference them tho. that is the essence of my
argument; it doens't matter how you spell it 'Close close cLose' whatever
they all, in my humble opinion, should refer to the same thing. as for the
determination that a name is a constant or macro, i contend that if it
makes a difference to the understanding of meaning of the program (as i
read it) then there is something else wrong.
a short anecdote about 'constants': around 14 years ago we were releasing a
FORTRAN (apologies to foust) compiler, and the author of the reference
manual had many humorous little things in the manual in an attempt to keep
the reader's attention. when the topic of DATA statement came up he gave
as an example:
DATA/C/2.9979E10
and he suggested using this form for several reasons: c is easier to read
than 2.9979E10; it is the 'standard' symbol to use for the speed of light;
and should the speed of light change, you would have to change only one
card (yes, that long ago, source on cards) to update the program.
the book had been in print (we ordered a couple of thousand) only 3 weeks
when a notice came into the engineering department from the national bureau
of standards to correct some things in our copy of some standard reference
book. one of the items was a new verified 'better' value for the speed of
light. most of the engineering staff were very amused by this, having
laughed when they first saw the example. unfortunately, management
wouldn't let me 'update' the manual…….just to show that some
'constants' really do change.
"I don't hear/see you arguing that the system should require you to type
them in uppercase to reference them…" And you won't either. But there's
a distinction here. More: "… it doesn't matter how you spell it 'Close
close cLose' whatever they all, in my humble opinion, should refer to the
same thing."
Hokay. To the first point: if the SYSTEM was requiring you to type them in
all uppercase it would probably be converting them for you as well, like
some of BASICs… it doesn't matter whether you typed upper or lower, all
the keywords are getting converted to UPPER.
What you are arguing about, I believe, is instead the system DISTINGUISHING
between upper and lower case and requiring you "to type them in", not in
uppercase, but THE WAY THEY ARE DEFINED. That is a subtle but significant
difference, and one on which we disagree. I want full control over my
variables, functions, and constants, and I don't want the compiler throwing
away any information I give it.
As to the second quote, I will give you an example. Suppose we write a file
closing routine for a custom application. We want to be able to just close
the file, or close and delete it, or close and delete it if there is a newer
copy by the same name. So, we write a close function which we name, normally
enough, "close(fp,mode)". For the modes we set up three defines: UPDATE to
kill it if there's a newer version, DELETE if we want to delete after close,
and CLOSE to simply close the file. So now you can make the following
function call: "close(fptr,CLOSE)". I'm sure you can see the compiler
becoming confused if it didn't care about case in this case. 8)
Your point may be that a programmer should never use close and CLOSE in the
same code, I don't know. Perhaps it's not as clear as it could be, and I
imagine it could confuse some people. I should think it's obvious that
close and CLOSE are two different entities, but since you're arguing that
they SHOULDN'T be, maybe I'm all wet. If that's the case, we have a
difference in programming style more than a disagreement over compiler
design.
It wasn't my intent to get into this discussion… I merely wanted to
suggest some uses for upper/lower case. As far as language/compiler design
is concerned, that's a very personal subject and depends on too many
factors (including the programmer and program) for me to voice an opinion.
Use what works for you.
"I don't hear/see you arguing that the system should require you to type
them in uppercase to reference them…" And you won't either. But there's
a distinction here. More: "… it doesn't matter how you spell it 'Close
close cLose' whatever they all, in my humble opinion, should refer to the
same thing."
Hokay. To the first point: if the SYSTEM was requiring you to type them in
all uppercase it would probably be converting them for you as well, like
some of BASICs… it doesn't matter whether you typed upper or lower, all
the keywords are getting converted to UPPER.
What you are arguing about, I believe, is instead the system DISTINGUISHING
between upper and lower case and requiring you "to type them in", not in
uppercase, but THE WAY THEY ARE DEFINED. That is a subtle but significant
difference, and one on which we disagree. I want full control over my
variables, functions, and constants, and I don't want the compiler throwing
away any information I give it.
As to the second quote, I will give you an example. Suppose we write a file
closing routine for a custom application. We want to be able to just close
the file, or close and delete it, or close and delete it if there is a newer
copy by the same name. So, we write a close function which we name, normally
enough, "close(fp,mode)". For the modes we set up three defines: UPDATE to
kill it if there's a newer version, DELETE if we want to delete after close,
and CLOSE to simply close the file. So now you can make the following
function call: "close(fptr,CLOSE)". I'm sure you can see the compiler
becoming confused if it didn't care about case in this case. 8)
Your point may be that a programmer should never use close and CLOSE in the
same code, I don't know. Perhaps it's not as clear as it could be, and I
imagine it could confuse some people. I should think it's obvious that
close and CLOSE are two different entities, but since you're arguing that
they SHOULDN'T be, maybe I'm all wet. If that's the case, we have a
difference in programming style more than a disagreement over compiler
design.
It wasn't my intent to get into this discussion… I merely wanted to
suggest some uses for upper/lower case. As far as language/compiler design
is concerned, that's a very personal subject and depends on too many
factors (including the programmer and program) for me to voice an opinion.
Use what works for you.
rick, that is a fine use of the 'display' of upper/lower case being
useful. i don't hear/see you arguing that the system should require you to
type them in in uppercase to reference them tho. that is the essence of my
argument; it doens't matter how you spell it 'Close close cLose' whatever
they all, in my humble opinion, should refer to the same thing. as for the
determination that a name is a constant or macro, i contend that if it
makes a difference to the understanding of meaning of the program (as i
read it) then there is something else wrong.
a short anecdote about 'constants': around 14 years ago we were releasing a
FORTRAN (apologies to foust) compiler, and the author of the reference
manual had many humorous little things in the manual in an attempt to keep
the reader's attention. when the topic of DATA statement came up he gave
as an example:
DATA/C/2.9979E10
and he suggested using this form for several reasons: c is easier to read
than 2.9979E10; it is the 'standard' symbol to use for the speed of light;
and should the speed of light change, you would have to change only one
card (yes, that long ago, source on cards) to update the program.
the book had been in print (we ordered a couple of thousand) only 3 weeks
when a notice came into the engineering department from the national bureau
of standards to correct some things in our copy of some standard reference
book. one of the items was a new verified 'better' value for the speed of
light. most of the engineering staff were very amused by this, having
laughed when they first saw the example. unfortunately, management
wouldn't let me 'update' the manual…….just to show that some
'constants' really do change.
Well, Vic is the one that posed the challenge, and that was to find an
English word in which capitalization changed the meaning. Note that this does
not say anything about the usefullness of capitalization, nor whether using
mixed case is in itself good or bad.
Acknowledged. Nor was my input intended to be anything more than an
example of how capitalization COULD be used to advantage (although it looks
like I'm now allowing myself to be dragged into the discussion 8). Yours
was simply a convenient message to use as a hook.
Acknowledged. Nor was my input intended to be anything more than an
example of how capitalization COULD be used to advantage (although it looks
like I'm now allowing myself to be dragged into the discussion 8). Yours
was simply a convenient message to use as a hook.
Well, Vic is the one that posed the challenge, and that was to find an
English word in which capitalization changed the meaning. Note that this does
not say anything about the usefullness of capitalization, nor whether using
mixed case is in itself good or bad.
If you'd be willing to open the discussion from "English usage", I can give
you a couple of valid reasons for upper/lower case.
It's rather difficult to look at a LIST and pick out the directorys,
sometimes. My solution to this is that all DIRECTORIES are capitalized,
while all Filenames are either lowercase or have only the first letter
capitalized. Lets the directories leap right out when you do a LIST.
In C, the standard procedure is to use all uppercase for MACROS and DEFINES,
and lowercase for everything else. This makes it immediately obvious when
you look at the code that PI and INDEX are constants, whereas picalc and
indexptr are variables.
Neither of these are required nor enforced, and they don't relate to your
challenge, but I thought I'd mention a couple of valid uses I've found.
larry, i have one in mind (well, generally accepted to have different
meaning), and the challange is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand,
but i like to see people understand the real reasons they like/need/want a
feature.
larry, i have one in mind (well, generally accepted to have different
meaning), and the challange is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand,
but i like to see people understand the real reasons they like/need/want a
feature.
Dictionary definition of a 'word':
A speech sound or combination of speech sounds, or it's
representation, used as the smallest unit of meaningful communication….
Thus acronymns, proper names, etc certainly are 'words'
And to add a few more:
cape…an article of clothing worn about the shoulders
Cape…a point of land, specificaly Cape Cod
Don,
Proper names do not have a definition. They are just names.
cape … an article of clothing.
cape … a point of land
Cape … no meaning.
Cape Cod … the name of a specific point of land, consisting of
two words which have only coincidental meaning in
that Cape Cod happens to be a cape.
I can't agree that the meaning is changed by capitalization in any of your
examples that include a proper name, since the names themselves have no
meaning.
As for acronyms, call them words if you must, but they _do_ stand for
something else.
ram .. a male sheep
RAM .. Random Access Memory
ram is not the same word as Random Access Memory, either in meaning
or in the case of its letters.
Dear "no definition",
How about champagne? It's a sparkling wine from the Champagne region of
France. If there was case insensitivity and you said "champagne is great"
are you talking about a wine or a locality?
And if that sparkling wine isn't FROM the Champagne region of France, it
SHOULDN'T be called "Champagne" (or "champagne"). THEY are the sticklers on
THAT point.
Lloyd,
"Should" is relative. It is illegal to sell a wine in France labeled
champagne that did not originate from Champagne. However, that law doesn't
bind anyone not in the legal jurisdiction of France.
Lloyd,
"Should" is relative. It is illegal to sell a wine in France labeled
champagne that did not originate from Champagne. However, that law doesn't
bind anyone not in the legal jurisdiction of France.
And if that sparkling wine isn't FROM the Champagne region of France, it
SHOULDN'T be called "Champagne" (or "champagne"). THEY are the sticklers on
THAT point.
a name has no meaning, a word does. I still consider Vic's challenge
unanswered.
A name has no meaning? Ok — whatever you say. BTW, what's a "Vic's"?
A name has no meaning? Ok — whatever you say. BTW, what's a "Vic's"?
a name has no meaning, a word does. I still consider Vic's challenge
unanswered.
Dear "no definition",
How about champagne? It's a sparkling wine from the Champagne region of
France. If there was case insensitivity and you said "champagne is great"
are you talking about a wine or a locality?
I have avoided making any comments in this interesting thread since I
did not have any reference materials available. Now that I am back in San
Diego……… In any event, Mr. Webster defines an acronym as a word but
also does not help with capitalization since the description ends with an
'etc.' I too can not think of a single instance (with the exception of
nouns) where the capitalization of a word changes its meaning. The
capitalization practices used with acronyms is still informal (I believe). As
with most of these kinds of discussions, it has been interesting to follow
and causes one to reflect a bit on what one considers to be 'standard' and
why. 73, bill
I have avoided making any comments in this interesting thread since I
did not have any reference materials available. Now that I am back in San
Diego……… In any event, Mr. Webster defines an acronym as a word but
also does not help with capitalization since the description ends with an
'etc.' I too can not think of a single instance (with the exception of
nouns) where the capitalization of a word changes its meaning. The
capitalization practices used with acronyms is still informal (I believe). As
with most of these kinds of discussions, it has been interesting to follow
and causes one to reflect a bit on what one considers to be 'standard' and
why. 73, bill
>ram is not the same word as Random Access Memory, either
>either in meaning or in the case of its letters.
But wasn't that the whole point of the discussion? That
capitalization of a 'word' could change its meaning?
>ram is not the same word as Random Access Memory, either
>either in meaning or in the case of its letters.
But wasn't that the whole point of the discussion? That
capitalization of a 'word' could change its meaning?
Don,
Proper names do not have a definition. They are just names.
cape … an article of clothing.
cape … a point of land
Cape … no meaning.
Cape Cod … the name of a specific point of land, consisting of
two words which have only coincidental meaning in
that Cape Cod happens to be a cape.
I can't agree that the meaning is changed by capitalization in any of your
examples that include a proper name, since the names themselves have no
meaning.
As for acronyms, call them words if you must, but they _do_ stand for
something else.
ram .. a male sheep
RAM .. Random Access Memory
ram is not the same word as Random Access Memory, either in meaning
or in the case of its letters.
Dictionary definition of a 'word':
A speech sound or combination of speech sounds, or it's
representation, used as the smallest unit of meaningful communication….
Thus acronymns, proper names, etc certainly are 'words'
And to add a few more:
cape…an article of clothing worn about the shoulders
Cape…a point of land, specificaly Cape Cod
Well, so far I see acronyms (not English), and proper names (not English
words). I still haven't seen two English words that mean different things
when capitalized. Good challenge Vic!
All of the examples given so far are either trade names or proper names,
hardly the substance of most computer programs
Humm….BASIC isn't the substance of a computer program….
OK…I'll buy that!
Humm….BASIC isn't the substance of a computer program….
OK…I'll buy that!
How about; XVII – 17 in Roman notation. xvii – Gibberish (a dead
language resurrected by the US Government for internal use only (consult
your doctor))
xvii……or perhaps page 17 in the prefix to a book.
xvii……or perhaps page 17 in the prefix to a book.
How about; XVII – 17 in Roman notation. xvii – Gibberish (a dead
language resurrected by the US Government for internal use only (consult
your doctor))
All of the examples given so far are either trade names or proper names,
hardly the substance of most computer programs
Vic,
2 examples:
Vic…your name
VIC…a computer
RAM…memory in a computer
ram…a male sheep
BASIC..a computer language
basic..the oposite of acidic, simple, fundamental, etc.
United States…this country
united states…a group of states who have gotten together on something
From now on, Vic, you are restricted to either upper or lower case, not
both. Capitalization is a contextual clue for meaning, even though it may
not affect the meaning of most words. Were you trying to be cute, or did
you intend to use capitals for emphasis (count 'em) four times in this
message?
You wouldn't be making the mistake of confusing English with computer
languages or computerese would you?
You wouldn't be making the mistake of confusing English with computer
languages or computerese would you?
ok, i'll stick to lower <grin>. no, i use capitals in the generally
accepted form as taught when i was in second grade (early 50's). i tend to
use them here for emphasis, since i can't raise my voice to put any
inflection in what i type. i notice that other usu _underscore_ for
emphasis. maybe after the 4th pitcher we can discuss this more ……..
ummmm, i'm lost for the proper adverb. nah, probably wouldn't be more
<insert favo(u)rite adverb> anyway.
ok, i'll stick to lower <grin>. no, i use capitals in the generally
accepted form as taught when i was in second grade (early 50's). i tend to
use them here for emphasis, since i can't raise my voice to put any
inflection in what i type. i notice that other usu _underscore_ for
emphasis. maybe after the 4th pitcher we can discuss this more ……..
ummmm, i'm lost for the proper adverb. nah, probably wouldn't be more
<insert favo(u)rite adverb> anyway.
From now on, Vic, you are restricted to either upper or lower case, not
both. Capitalization is a contextual clue for meaning, even though it may
not affect the meaning of most words. Were you trying to be cute, or did
you intend to use capitals for emphasis (count 'em) four times in this
message?
Well, let's look at a few examples. Isn't it nice that Nice is in France.
Can you ford a river in a Ford? Do you know if there's a pueblo in Pueblo?
Do Hamburgers like hamburgers? Or if you want to be picky… Isn't that
nice? Isn't that Nice? Where's the ford. Where's the Ford? Would you
eat a hamburger? Would you eat a Hamburger? Enough?
Well, let's look at a few examples. Isn't it nice that Nice is in France.
Can you ford a river in a Ford? Do you know if there's a pueblo in Pueblo?
Do Hamburgers like hamburgers? Or if you want to be picky… Isn't that
nice? Isn't that Nice? Where's the ford. Where's the Ford? Would you
eat a hamburger? Would you eat a Hamburger? Enough?
My own personal demon, by the way, is a huge distributed database program
in PL/M that comes out to nearly a megabyte, compiled. I too know of what
I speak.
to quote what seems an appropriate reply.
"I'm sorry."
That's OK. I walked into it with my eyes open.
It could be worse. It could be PL/1 and Fortran.
i walked into mine with my eyes open too. i think i could handle it
a whole lot more if there were another person in the department. it sure
gets lonely (and error prone) fixing some of this stuff without anyone else
to talk to.
i walked into mine with my eyes open too. i think i could handle it
a whole lot more if there were another person in the department. it sure
gets lonely (and error prone) fixing some of this stuff without anyone else
to talk to.
That's OK. I walked into it with my eyes open.
It could be worse. It could be PL/1 and Fortran.
to quote what seems an appropriate reply.
"I'm sorry."
My own personal demon, by the way, is a huge distributed database program
in PL/M that comes out to nearly a megabyte, compiled. I too know of what
I speak.
No I can't say I like NO structures, and the lack of types drives me batty.
By the way, if you can come up with an example in the English language of
where the capitalization is important (i.e. makes a difference in the
definition of the word) I might -repeat- MIGHT agree that case sensitivity
had some use. You'd better make that TWO examples, my debate teacher said
there is ONE example of everything. <smmiiille>
> I maintain about .5 megalines of BCPL code for Computer Automation.
I'm sorry.
All case insensitivity does for you is reduce the available name space by a
factor of 2^n or so. I must admit that there are facets of BCPL that I
like, but that's true of just about any language you can name. Can you look
at me with a straight face and tell me it's better not to have types and
data structures?
Peter, surely you jest. I thought everyone on this forum knew that I
maintain about .5 megalines of BCPL code for Computer Automation. It's a
multi-tasking, multi-user, real-time, protected operating-system. BCPL has
several quirks, but case SeNsItIvItY is (praise the Lord) NOT one of them.