Yet Another Case Question

[Bengt Richter]

On 23 Feb 2003 15:35:31 -0800, sjmachin at lexicon.net (John Machin) wrote:

>Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote in message news:<mailman.1045989065.13789.python-list at python.org>...
>> "Tim Churches" <tchur at optushome.com.au> wrote previously:
>> |You haven't had enough conversations with seven year olds lately. It's
>> |not self-evident at all.
>> |>>> count == Count
>> |NameError
>> 
>> And THIS doesn't confuse a seven year old?!  Heck, it confuses me... and
>> I'm old.
>
>Dave, you haven't mentioned the bitter religious wars between the
>O-slashers and the 0-slashers, so you can't be *really* old.
>
>The problem is one of where you drive in your peg on the scale between
>bit-by-bit exactness and "equivalent for the job in hand". Bitwise
>exact is unfortunately all too easy and all too often not a bright
>idea.
>
>Skip the admittedly sometimes enlightening chats with 7yos. Moving
>outside the domain of variable names into the real world, try talking
>to the computer system users and customers who are affected by
>sillinesses such as:
>
>(1) rejecting customer transactions because "John Citizen" != "JOHN
>CITIZEN"
>
>(2) rejecting customer transactions because "John  Arthur" != "John
>Arthur"
>
>(3) doubling taxes because "000123456" != "123456"
>
>and ask them what they think of bit-by-bit exactness.
>
Bit-by-bit exactness has nothing to do with those examples.
If the cook can't cook, the solution is not oatmeal uber alles.
The silliness is in flawed product development, not the language.

Regards,
Bengt Richter