Re: Three simple questions

[James Hassett <hassett@planet8.tds-eagan.lmco.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> Incidentally, note that it is only computers that even for
> a moment dally with case sensitivity. In ordinary language,
> there are indeed style rules for capitalization, but the
> case of characters is not in general semantically significant.
>
> If I spell my name
>
> robert dewar
>
> That looks a little peculiar, but no one thinks this is a
> different name from
>
> Robert Dewar
>

I agree in general, but the Guardians of Corporate Identity often pay
close attention to case as well.

I have the impression that some people are much more sensitive to
case differences than other people--some people seem to notice more
readily than others the "preferred" use of case in names such as
AdaMULTI, AverStar, GNAT, SIGAda, TRI-Ada, Tcl/Tk, or VxWorks.
(I've tried to include examples that run counter to the notion that
an acronymic etymology matters.)  It seems that some people are
less likely than others to notice case differences, some people are
less inclined to bother with case differences in their writing, and
some people are quite compulsive about the use of case.

If this is true, it might account for the fact that the issue of
case sensitivity seems to ignite raging controversy--those who are
quite sensitive to case find it a useful distinction, while those
who are less sensitive find it leads to much trouble.

If I'm right about this diversity in the population of programmers,
then the best rule for language design is that case should not be
significant--unless the language will be used only by those who are
acutely sensitive to case. :-)

(It seems a bit ironic that while the Ada language itself is not
case sensitive, many of its advocates--myself included--are quite
sensitive to the distinction between "Ada" and "ADA"!)

- Jim Hassett