|
It's up there with "code behind" and "breaking" the MVVM model. Or using C# "custom code" in LINQ .Where() clauses. (Which I do all the time ... and love).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
begin
life(achievements);
end.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
His language provided for my family for over 10 years.
I still say := is the superior assignment notation.
Thank you Sir and
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: := is the superior assignment notation.
You are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
As a trainer for a few years in C and C++, I always stressed that when scanning/reading/writing code you should train yourself to read/think the operator and not the character(s).
int a = 5;
a = 5;
a == 5;
a += 5;
etc
Having a separate token for assignment operator is much cleaner.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: you should train yourself to read/think the operator and not the character(s)
Funny analogy:
I spent a year as a US high school senior. In Norwegian high school, the physics teacher had stressed that in formulas and equations, we use letter symbols that are not from name of the phenomenon, e.g. 'v' for 'fart' (speed) and 'c' for 'ladning' (charge). Advanced physics requires so much math an so many equations that we must learn to solve as pure math equations with arbitrarily named variables. Being concerned about the physical interpretation while doing the math is disturbing, you do the math better by not worrying about what a squared speed is!
This was firmly established in my brain when I came to the US and a physics teacher who strongly stressed that the symbols are mnemonics, to keep you aware of the physical interpretation. You must always use the mnemonic symbols: Kinetic energy E = 1/2 mv^2, half the mass times the velocity squared. A = 1/2 tf^2 is not the kinetic energy, but something completely different! For a few phenomena, I was used to other letters than the ones used in the US physics textbook - I think they might have been mnemonics for Latin words, not English ones. If I happened to use those Latin symbols in my hand-ins, they were corrected by the teacher to the proper English ones.
So there are different schools. My preference is like yours: Don't worry about the textual representation, the equation is the same with other letters. The operation/operator is the same whatever it is called, how it is written.
At least in an ideal world. There is a problem with symbols that have a well established interpretation that everyone knows, but you insist on using it with a different interpretation. That is the problem with '=': For centuries, the meaning of 'if privilege level = boss, allow entrance' is an interrogation of the privilege level. Then comes C programmers and insist on a different interpretation: The privilege level is set to 'boss', and if the internal representation of 'boss' is zero, entrance is allowed, regardless of who you are. This redefinition of well established interpretation I do not appreciate.
Nor do I appreciate having to ask 'if privilege level is is boss, allow entrance'. Why should I have to double the test? There is a well established convention for interrogating the privilege level without repeating the condition!
In other words: I prefer Pascal's ':=' (or APL's '←' - I have also seen languages using <- ) rather than breaking down well established conventions.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
The proprietary language in which I worked for much of my career used ->, which was dubbed "gazinta" (goes into). This allowed constructs such as
if(function(arguments) -> result = ...) with = being the C++ equivalent of ==.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: "gazinta" (goes into)
But that's division. e.g. three gazinta twelve four times.
|
|
|
|
|
I still enjoy his books.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Worked about 10 year with Modula 2.
Have read a lot of his parser stuff and compiler compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
I did my final college project using Pascal - very rebellious for that time of COBOL...
Simply fascinated me the language
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
Did my final graduate project in PL/I which at the time was considered IBM's entry to their world. Our professor preferred Pascal and/or Algol 60, which I used frequently, but they were not commercially useful in US at that time, mid to late 70's, so he pushed PL/I. It had all the same concepts and then some as Pascal and Algol. I turned into a full fledged C programmer while using PL/I and COBOL to make money. Fortran served me well in the tech world of engineering. Wrote some pretty aggressive code using Fortran. Now I use only C, but I am retired. C++ not so much.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
RIP, Niklaus, and thank you for your invention of Pascal. Without any competition, Pascal is, by far, the best language I have used in the almost 50 years since I started programming. The C family has nothing to offer that can compare to the functionality and readability of Pascal.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: functionality and readability
Are frequently at odds with other things which C is really good at.
I haven't used Pascal since college, it never paid the bills.
|
|
|
|
|
That certainly true; it never caught on. I used it for electronics testing in Aerospace, where maintainability is paramount, and there is no better language for readability. Alas, it lacked a lot of the bare metal programming capability that the C family brought to the table, and that was its doom, I suspect.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
And the 255-character string limit?
|
|
|
|
|
That was never a problem when I was actively programming, and I believe that was extended as part of their adoption of OOP with version 5.5+. Back in those days, testing was performed by setting up instruments with string commands, then triggering them with events generated by the test code. Reports were collected by reading instrument registers, so string length was never an issue. I was happy with the introduction of named Calls at the time, as everything the company I worked for used procedure calls that had numbers, and the only way to find out how to call them with parameters was to beg the Systems Programming group for documentation on a particular Call. Strange times, and everything was proprietary and dynamic; it wasn't unusual to use three programming languages on one Project. We are so very much better off today!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joke? pure horror!
|
|
|
|
|
Clippy + HAL
I'm sorry Dave I can't let you compose that sentence, it's not grammatically correct.
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
I miss Clippy. He was always, and is apparently still good for a laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
Why could they not see the writing on the Windows? 
Oh, I know this one was goofy, even by my standards 
|
|
|
|
|
Just came back (see above)
Glad to see you around Paul.  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
