Re: [eiffel_software] Other thoughts on syntax and why it matters
>I think this is really a disadvantage! Yes really - bear with me. I think that
> Yes, oops, I didn't make that "converting" it thing very clear.
> This is one thing I love about the .NET CLS. Use whatever language
> you wish, they can all work together.
offering different syntaxes for the same language is no problem. A programmer
could switch syntaxes to use the one they like best. The IDE could even
automate this so the developer only sees the syntax they prefer.
The problem with .Net is that all the languages VB, C#, C++ are different
languages with different philosophies not just different syntaxes. To make it
all work together changes had to be made to these languages. eg VB.Net is not
the same language as VB.
When I am working on a project that has been written in many different
languages each with different design philosophies this only makes
maintancence a lot harder. You have to not only do a syntax swap but also an
idealogy swap. C++ is not a GC language. VB is not statically type safe.
Eiffel offers multiple inheritance. These are all big differences in language
In the end .Net had to dilute these languages and stray them somewhat from
their original design goals so that they could be compatiable with the .Net
A better approach in my opinion would have been to offer C like, Pascal like
syntaxes over one new language with one design philosophy. Syntax could be
switched at runtime and could be tailored to a developers taste. That would
be far more consistent and I think is what Thomas is hinting at by suggesting
a more C like syntax to Eiffel. Not a replacement syntax but one which could
also be used and the IDE would automatically convert source code to the
developers preferred syntax. That would be neat I think. It would also make
clear how unimprotant syntax is to a language compared with the concepts of
While it may then have a C like syntax it would not of course be C (as .Net
would like you to believe) it would just be more familiar to a C programmer
and they might be more likely to program in Eiffel if they felt more familiar
with the syntax.
> Come on, the Java base class libraries are hardly the model of how
> code.I didn't say they were in general. Just in this specific case they
> Yes that was me. Considering that there were only you, me, andPeter
> Gummer in that thread, I'm shocked you couldn't remember me :)Sorry. I have to use this Yahoo web interface at the moment and it
is hard to navigate around and follow threads etc.
> > But the same can be said for contracts and command query
> > does not mean we should not have contracts because people willabuse them
> > and cause side effects in them. They are a useful tool just likechecked
> > exceptions.language,
> Yes but Eiffel is a method, it is the whole package. Java is a
> and nothing more.Eiffel's method could be enhanced by taking this aspect from Java.