From: =?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?= <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 8/5/2012 11:41 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 7:50 AM, John B. Matthews wrote:
>> In article <i8-dnR2vnZbqqIDNnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>> Patricia Shanahan <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>>> In article <EvSdnXhPjOT-IY_NnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
>>>>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
>>>> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
>>>> hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
>>>> arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
>>>> operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
>>>> used to that.
>>>> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
>>>> the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
>>>> their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
>>>> tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
>>>> brightest idea.
>>> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
>>> use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
>>> wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
>>> wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.
>> One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt
>> on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm
>> in polite explication in either case.
>>> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
>>> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
>>> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
>>> lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
>>> excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
>>> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
>>> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
>>> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
>>> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
>>> unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.
>> A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed
>> nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green,
>> "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a
>> particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant bottle finds
>> its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless victims enter a
>> persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.
> This seems like a good argument in support of sticking to one style,
> regardless of brand. The programming equivalent is using one set of
> conventions for indentation and identifier construction regardless of
> programming language. That way, there is less risk of someone misreading
> an identifier because it is in a different style from code in another
> language they have been using.
I think same brand for programming languages is SUN Java and IBM Java for Java,
GCC and MSVC++ for C/C++ etc..
And it certainly makes sense to use the same conventions no matter what vendor
provides the compiler.
Different languages must be more like different type of bottles: medical
supply, beverages, poisons.
And they do not use same color convention.
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24