Bill Kohl billk@hypercon.com wrote:
If Smalltalk were case insensitive, then I assume the method 'howIsThisForReadability', could be sent as HOWISTHISFORREADIBILITY or howisthisforreadability (plus all other combinations). For me, this would
make
readability an issue.
Well, this does look like a really sound argument for case sensitivity. Symbols representing selectors do come back to us as items in browser method lists, or in "messages" selection dialogs. All technicalities and personal preferences aside, this is an actually important reason to preserve their original shape.
jarvisb@timken.com wrote:
I personally prefer case-sensitive languages to case-insensitive languages. If I want to have selectors or procedures named abc, Abc, ABC, and aBc in a program I darn well expect the language to allow it and not try to limit what can be done. I also *HATE* underscores and dashes in identifier, selector, or procedure names. If I wanted to PROGRAM-IN-COBOL or PROGRAM_IN_PL_1 <gag!> I'd do so. I don't. Keep Smalltalk case-sensitive!!!! :-)
Hey, dashes are just fine to separate words! But underscores -- *those* are really ugly, I'm with you on that. Seriously, as long as there are several approaches to achieving the same result, there are that many camps religiously defending the ergonomical, historical, or moral merits of their favourite one. In a well-known primitive case, the only problem was choosing the proper end of an egg, while in our advanced world opportunities are definitely much richer. I believe, Minsky described something similar in his _Society of Mind_: the closer two alternatives are to each other, the harder it is to choose -- the paradox being that the closer they are, the less significant is the choice.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org