At 01:18 AM 8/30/2012, Arioch wrote:
tcoq wrote
>
> a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
> design...
>
Guess you meant "don't want to" instead of "can't"
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
"var x: array[0..10] of integer; " is not only violating Pascal Report, but
also is twice lazy.
since one should name every part of design one should type like
type
SomeEnumSemanticName = 0..10;
SomeEnumMapSemanticName = array[SomeEnumSemanticName] of integer;
var x: SomeEnumMapSemanticName;
That has a point, for self-documenting if nothing else. But i don't believe
it is practically that pervasive as your stated maxima would assume.
Sorry, but that example of yours is silly at best. Someone who has
learned to program in Pascal should be able write clearly
understandable programs, not obfuscate just for 'the heck of it'.
But then common sense seems to have turned into a rare commodity these days.
Pascal has evolved since Wirth's original design back in the 70s,
nobody is writing serious programs in the original defined language
set anymore, I dare to day that even ISO Pascal is not all that
useful for real life programs anymore.
A lot of extensions, like units or (objects in general) that you
mentioned have been done in a way that still leave the very basics of
Pascal intact.
But all the fluff that you (and others) are proposing all the time
just aim at completely change the language for no other than
self-serving reasons and that's why people rightfully oppose such proposals...
Ralf
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
