From: Zach Dennis <zdennis@...>
Date: 2004-10-02T00:23:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Range syntax theory

James Edward Gray II wrote:

> On Sep 30, 2004, at 9:17 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>> If this were an actual language debate you would have just lost. You 
>> didn't show any logical reasoning or rational conclusions to support 
>> your position. This is like Larry Wall saying that Perl is the best 
>> programming language syntacically because it is like a overly complex 
>> Haiku and it just cannot be explained because of it's aesthetics.
>
>
> I believe I remember in your first post you saying you weren't calling 
> for a language restructuring, just seeing if someone could explain the 
> reasoning to you. Obviously, that has changed, by the tone of your 
> later messages.

Yes, I did say that. And I still don't want the near future versions of 
Ruby to change. I was expecting someone to point out some reasoning that 
I was unaware of for why .. and ... are like that. And there just 
haven't been reasons besides it already being like that.

>
> You have now been given several possible explanations. You are 
> "countering" them as they come in. And yet, I believe the majority has 
> said that it doesn't seem to bother them and they would be against a 
> change.

The several explanations you talk about are either a) revolving around 
the "it's already that way and we already know it" b) think of it this 
way descriptions (which just a way to train your brain) c) possible 
alternatives.

The syntax doesn't bother me personally, and as I've noted in previous 
posts that I am thinking abuot future programmers and raising the 
question, would this be more one step for Ruby to be more natural and 
make more sense for those future programmers.

>
> I'm really not trying to knock your crusade here.

Any and all feedback/response is greatly appreciated James whether it's 
for or against me, or neither.

> By all means, write up an RCR and we'll see how it goes. I just feel 
> like you are getting the common opinion and are less and less 
> interested in it.

The common opinion doesn't answer any of my original questions. I was 
not asking if people can live with the syntax. I was asking if others 
had ever thought it was sort of backwards and if they knew why it was 
done that way. Some people said, they have never thought of being 
backwards, and others have said yes it appeared backwards, but they just 
retrained their brain.

And this is just a fun discussion to have IMO. But it'll have to end 
today because I will gone for the next few days. ;)

Thanks for your response and your honesty. I hate sarcasm and I 
appreciate it when people are frank with me.

Zach