Re: argument about encapsulating data sublanguage

On Dec 28, 11:39 am, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Consider that most OOPLs, such as Java, contain a mix of notations.
> >Both the modern OO notation "x.f(y)" and the old-fashioned math
> >notation "x + y" are supported. But why should we continue to
> >use such a low-level way of doing things?
>
> OTOH, x.f(y) is typical hierarchical chauvinism oppressing y
> merely because it is second. Have we not grown past that? Can we not
> have relationships between equals: x+y?

But in "x+y", the y still comes second! That's not equal!

You have reminded me of something the hollywood movies do when faced with two stars of the first magnitude, and the problem of how to give them equal credit. One gets the leftmost position, and one gets the topmost position. This will require a 2 dimensional syntax:

+y
x

It works well, don't you think?

>
> >Best of all, this lets me avoid sprinkling math formulas throughout
> >my code. Yuck! That stuff needs to be segregated off in one
> >place, so it doesn't gum up the works like so much sand.
>
> Have you figured out a way to avoid sprinkling logic throughout
> code? Many people do not seem to like logic much, and you would be
> doing them a favour.

An excellent question! I shall work on it.

Marshall Received on Thu Dec 28 2006 - 14:54:25 CST