From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a84eaf8fb2470909 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Ada generics Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1166710494.869393.108730@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <186qujlcx6rwl.1h6eq4mbdaa5s$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167150212.165097.289010@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> <1qmdvus6du3xu.1n21tzgev46ia$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167246396.057028.325080@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <15jxp8z1iu5fk.1oeihvavjghgg$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167327306.22163.66.camel@localhost> <1on3cinnnckc5.1rxxvjhxs5qzl.dlg@40tude.net> <1167421145.30532.11.camel@localhost> <1167490403.26940.44.camel@localhost> <1a2r4wlgiett6.1w5j3q7696x72$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167732264.661.36.camel@localhost> <78t224mtd234.1e11h379pwu57.dlg@40tude.net> <1167741187.661.50.camel@localhost> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:51:31 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jan 2007 14:51:27 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 500d8600.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=P044ZKa0:Uk>jlK2>IgHGdA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3YbRjYUQ23?7:oDNcfSJ;bb[eIRnRBaCd On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:33:07 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:11 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> Should we deny problem domain facts just so that we have very >>> simple rules for parsers? Where German is written, there is a >>> simple rule: For writing "ß" in upper case, use "SS". >> >> This is not a domain of the programming language, > > Programming languages use natural language words for good > reasons, for example, because we can think and communicate > more clearly referring to things using descriptive names. Come on, why on earth "water" is a descriptive name of water. I find "вода" far more descriptive! (:-)) Natural language words (even pictographs) describe absolutely nothing but themselves. > Programming problems cannot reasonably described in full > using only formal symbolism. So what? Maybe mathematical analysis cannot be described in first-order logic, but that does not mean that "fairy wear boots" were a statement in either. > Why give up descriptive names just because natural language > words can be slightly more difficult to parse than words > tailored to the needs of the most stupid computer programs? Why give up? It is not a language business. The language treats *any* names equally. Any application domain meaning of names is outside the language. >>> That's not too hard a challenge to computer science in my view, >>> but I'll leave that to psychologists to answer when it comes >>> to the views of actual computer scientists. :-) >> >> Simplicity of implementation does not justify doing wrong things! (:-)) > > Indeed, this is why I like to be able to write identifiers > that are written correctly, Mathematicians use much less descriptive identifies being absolutely free to use Latin, Greek and Hebrew alphabets. Yet nobody even tried to use full words. Why? > and not wrong just because we are > given only 7bit-ASCII identifiers as written in > Computeranglosaxonian. :-) Yet another "German" rule: "a_b" = "ab"? In that spirit, what about middle-endian integer literals and postfix forms for all function calls? (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de