On 2/23/2011 8:48 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
In article<4d643b46$0$12713$6d5eeec5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jose Baars<peutbaars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I guess people learn to live with any syntax as long as the desired
functionality is available.

The real problem is that people who learn a cryptic and inconsistent
syntax then think of that example for thir own designs.

So we get new stuff that with late 1960's interfaces, despite all the
research and work done since then on man-machine interaction.

And then I run into some programmer who's proud of knowing all
the trivia needed to use some late 1960's tool, like it makes him
special or something.

If the 1960's tool is still in use. . . somebody must have done something right!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pythons "only one way to do it" philosophy isnt good?
    ... Flexibility of function -- ... It is you who are in denial if you believe that syntax is ... as long as one is provided the required functionality. ... is that a programming language can't provide ...
  • Re: Program compression
    ... functionality, then a new keyword can be added to allow additional ... Refactoring is a daily experience as I try various algorithms until ... Lesson 4: Refactoring syntax ...
  • Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
    ... adding new syntax is a POST-2002 development. ... '02 Standard was that it was simply "TOO BIG". ... COULD already be accomplished and did the language really need them. ... the syntax for that functionality is pretty straightforward -- adds ...
  • Re: New bytecode assembly language to play with
    ... language that looks familiar, something I could probably figure out quite ... about a bit of superficial syntax here. ... The wheel has been reinvented several times. ... one that introduces new functionality, i.e. it's not just another way ...
  • Re: PEP 318 decorators are not Decorators
    ... syntax, not the functionality. ... Yes the ambiguity, I agree, is bad. ... I agree, willful, to an extent. ...