Re: The IDS, the EDS and the DBMS

"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:pgh9k0l47q325uo930jqm3pqr7e7pc8ug2_at_4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:33:18 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> >news:%I_0d.30754$MQ5.23684_at_attbi_s52...
> >> Realistically, you'd probably stick with == for equality-check,
> >> to disambiguate it from assignment.
> >
> >Or use ":=" for assignment, freeing up "=" for equality-check.
>
> I know this is wandering even further from the froup's topic of
> database theory, but ...
>
> Maybe I'm some kind of dullard, but I've never had a problem with
> languages which use "=" for both assignment and equality checking.
> The meaning of "=" is understood by the context:
>

Maybe you not some kind off dullard. Maybe I want a language that doesn't unnecessarily confuse people of normal intelligence. Maybe those people seem like dullards to you.

But here's the answers:

If you disambiguate:

It's easier to write the parser.
It's easier to learn the language.
It's easier to read the code.
It's easier to think about the problem when you don't have to think about

Back when I was young and smart, I could cope with languages that were full of quirks, like FORTRAN or assembler. You just used some of your brainpower to deal with those quirks. Then, after years and years of coding in poorly constructed languages, I learned PASCAL. It was amazing how much easier it was to come up with correct and useful programs when the language wasn't a distraction.

It was like not having a headache after ten years of having one.

Now that I'm old and dumb, I really need a language that makes sense.

There are other languages that are just as sensible as PASCAL. They just aren't the most "popular" ones. Received on Mon Sep 13 2004 - 11:47:15 CEST