rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 21:35:08 CEST 2012
On Jul 2, 2:06 pm, Thomas Jollans <t... at jollybox.de> wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 08:22 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Agreed. I wish we had one language. One which had syntactical
> > directives for scoping, blocks, assignments, etc, etc...
> > BLOCK_INDENT_MARKER -> \t
> > BLOCK_DEDENT_MARKER -> \n
> > STATEMENT_TERMINATOR -> \n
> > ASSIGNMENT_OPERATOR -> :=
> > CONDITIONAL_IF_SPELLING -> IF
> > CONDITIONAL_ELSE_SPELLING -> EL
> > ...
> You must be joking.
Well i was slightly serious, but mostly sarcastic.
Whist customizable syntax would be a great benefit to the individual,
it would be a nightmare to the community -- the real solution lies in
I am reminded of a story: A few years back a very nice old woman
offered to give me her typewriter. She said: "i might need to type a
letter one day and it would good to have around". It was a nice
typewriter for 1956, but she had no idea her little "machine" was
reduced to no less than a paper weight thanks to something called the
PC. Her machine had been extinct for decades. Effectually, SHE had
been extinct for decades.
When i hear people like Chris evangelizing about slavish syntax, i am
reminded of the nice old lady. Her intentions where virtuous, however
her logic was flawed. She is still clinging to old technology. Like
the Luddites she refuses to see the importance technological
advancements. And by harboring this nostalgia she is actually
undermining the future evolution of an entire species. Lifespans are
limited for a very important evolutionary reason!
More information about the Python-list