Re: The caselessness is one of the things I like best!

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

John English wrote:
> 
> Arthur Evans Jr wrote:
> > OTOH, I don't think it should be the goal of language design to
> > legislate against such usage -- it can't succeed in doing so.  For
> > example, nothing in Ada's specification legislates against using
> > OO00OO0O00O00 and OO00O00O00O00 as identifiers, or
> > lll11l1l1lll1l1ll1 and lll11l1l1l1l1l1ll1, or mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > and mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  I think use of such identifiers is
> > fully as bad practice as using 'item' and 'Item'.
> 
> Yes, but as I've said many times before, having to remember whether
> an identifier is spelt RuntimeException or RunTimeException, or
> Hashtable vs. HashTable, or HashMap vs. Hashmap, is an unnecessary
> burden on my memory. And to add insult to injury, all the Java and
> C++ compilers I know will just barf if you get the case wrong rather
> than giving a more helpful error message suggesting the possibly
> correct spelling...

Note that Java abuses case sensitivity in its standard.
There is the reserved word "class", which is used to define a class,
and the "Class" class, which is used as the basis for reflection.

While on the subject, I also am amused by the "Object" class, which
is the root of all Java inheritance.

This combination allows you to talk about the Class object and the
Object class as well as the Class class and the Object object.
This results in wonderful classroom discussions.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA