Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: language issues ( was RE: [hackers-il] [colloq@cs.Technion.AC .IL: Shimon Schocken on Tu esday 05/06/2001] )

Expand Messages
  • Omer Musaev
    ... Hm. Well, my example was somewhat exaggerated. However, any convention is better than to have fsize, bsize, MIN_FSIZE _AND_ BSIZE. Take a note that we use
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Chen Shapira
      > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:51 PM
      > To: 'hackers-il@yahoogroups.com'
      > Subject: RE: language issues ( was RE: [hackers-il]
      > [colloq@... .IL: Shimon Schocken on Tu esday 05/06/2001] )
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Omer Musaev
      > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:34 PM
      > > To: 'hackers-il@yahoogroups.com'
      >
      > > However, in some cases case sensitivity can help.
      > > For example consider a following convention:
      > > we have variables fsize, bsize and ssize, which carry sizes of
      > > various variable size structures. Constants FSIZE, BSIZE and
      > > SSIZE hold
      > > minimal size of appropriate structures.
      > >
      > > Here, case sensitivity is a win.
      >
      > A technical win. Because when I remember names I remember
      > them by sounds, I
      > think that most of us do too. So having 2 variables with the
      > same sound and
      > different meaning will make the program harder to learn.
      > What's wrong with MIN_FSIZE?

      Hm. Well, my example was somewhat exaggerated. However, any convention is
      better than to have fsize, bsize, MIN_FSIZE _AND_ BSIZE.

      Take a note that we use CAPITAL NAMES for constants for granted, and once it
      was not
      in practice ( ALL VARIABLES WERE CAPITALS AND YOU HAD A IDENTIFICATION
      DIVISION SOMEWHERE )

      > > People who use Pascal for serious programming fall into a
      > fatal trap.
      >
      > Pascal has its problems, but every language has those.
      > We do OO in C, I try to write efficient and clean code in VB,
      > and some of us
      > write finite automata in PS.
      >
      > The problem in Pascal isn't what it doesn't support. C doesn't support
      > lambda and we can live with that. The main problem is that
      > there's no good
      > reason to do Pascal anymore.
      > C is used for portability. Java for a wide library, OO
      > support and some hype
      > value, VB is used for its ease of use.

      A good point.
      However, that sentence was issued at 1981 (it was part of citation),
      when Pascal was used widely and was used for serious programming.

      > One thing Pascal may still be good for is "Intro to CS" in first year
      > courses.
      > At least no worse than anything else.
      > IMO there's no good language for that (maybe Python?), mostly
      > because the
      > requisites aren't well defined enough.

      I second that.
      I learned intro to CS in Java, however, lecturer had used all his
      material from Pascal course. That was annoying. His motto was something like

      "inheritance is bad, procedural programming is very, very good".
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.