ch-ch-changes

[Yigal Chripun]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Yigal Chripun<yigal100 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Nick Sabalausky<a at a.a>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't "tail" the standard counterpart to "head"? ("toe" just doesn't
>>>> sound
>>>> good)
>>> Tail has a history of being used to mean "everything but head" in
>>> functional programming languages like Haskel and ML.
>>>
>>> So of  back, last, end, tail, rear, foot, toe, it seems every one has
>>> some strike against it.
>>>
>>> back - could be mistaken for an action
>>> last - doesn't pair well with "head", and "first" sounds too much like
>>> item #1 overall
>>> end - in C++ usually means "one past the end"
>>> tail - in FP langs means "everything but head"
>>> rear - makes Walter thing unhappy thoughts
>>> toe - sounds silly, doesn't make so much sense for a range that
>>> represents a tree structure.
>>>
>>> Toe is sounding pretty ok.
>>>
>>> Actually I think the critique that it doesn't make sense for a
>>> non-linear range should be thrown out.  Linearizing is the whole
>>> purpose of a range.  So even if it wasn't linear before, a range
>>> effective is providing a linearized view of it.
>>>
>>> So that leaves "it sounds silly", which is a pretty weak subjective
>>> argument against.
>>>
>>> --bb
>> I disagree with the above reasoning. "Language X has different meaning for
>> word Y" is not a valid argument IMO. One of D's stated goals is to break
>> backward compatability when needed in order to get a better language design,
>> yet we constantly keep getting back to " but in C++ ...".
>> if people want to use a backward compatible language they already have C++
>> for that, and they don't need D. I for one, prefer to change when the change
>> makes sense and brings more clarity. Yes, it'll be initially confusing for
>> former C++ programmers, but IMO it's worth it in the long run.
>> head/toe is not just silly, it's also non intuitive for non-English
>> speakers. (I'd be confused by this, had i seen this for the first time)
>> When I write D code I think in D, not any other language and I'm sure that
>> applies to most people. making the switch to "D mode" is easier IMO than
>> trying to remember confusing terms, just because some other language has
>> slightly different meaning for the deafult terms.
>>
>> Hack, I don't even know haskel, why should I care about haskell's
>> definitions?
>
> If you port code from C++ or Haskell to D it will become an issue.  I
> ported a largeish C++ library with lots of iterators and it was only
> natural to use the same terminology as C++ there (begin/end).  If D
> co-opted those terms I'm not sure what I'd call the ported C++ ones to
> differentiate, and it would just end up being confusing to both D and
> C++ users.  I think making it easy to port C++ code is a good goal.
>
> Not so sure about Haskell, though.  D may never be functional enough
> for porting Haskell to make much sense.
>
>> I already asked in a previous post - would a chinese programmer intuitivly
>> think that toe is the last item in a range?
>
> Does it really matter if it's used everywhere and consistently
> throughout D?  It's like saying "char" is unintuitive.  Yeh, it is
> unintuitive, but once you know it's short for "character" it's easy to
> remember.  Surely a Chinese programmer once he learns toe is the last
> item will have no problem remembering what it means, given the
> relationship between head and toe on a person's body.
>
> --bb

I guess you completely missed my point.
If we are choosing terms that are going to be used everywhere and 
consistently throughout D, we should pick the intuitive words for the 
first and last items in a range - 'first' and 'last'.
to rephrase what you've said:
Surely a C++ programmer once he learns 'last' is the last
item in a D range (simple, isn't it?) will have no problem remembering 
what it means.
in other words - if a Chinese programmer can learn an unintuitive term 
so can a C++ programmer. the only difference is that with the former 
option we all get stuck with a bad name for good, while with the latter 
it's only a temporary inconvenience since [hopefully] the C++ programmer 
will become a D programmer.

as already pointed by others [read Chad's reply] - there is no 
relationship between head and toe on a person's body, and you might as 
well use 'foot'.

regarding porting code - while I agree that this can help, porting code 
is a minor and secondary objective. both C code and a subset of C++ (in 
D2) can be directly linked with D code, so porting isn't that important 
and isn't the main goal of the language. besides, your argument would 
apply to most other C-family languages - there's a lot of Java code 
ported to D, for example, so maybe we should prefer Java's semantics 
over the C++ ones?
or maybe C#'s or javascript, or ..?