Why is there no or or and ?

[F i L]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "F i L" <witte2008 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:jzkatvnibtjkcafqsibf at forum.dlang.org...
>>> All of the syntaxes you're advocating are every bit as 
>>> arbitrary as the ones you're against.
>>
>> Programming is logic largely based around math.
>
> Yes, it's *based* around math, but it *isn't* math.
>
> English is based largely around German and Latin, and yet it's 
> neither German nor Latin, nor a mere conjunction of them, nor 
> can one say that it *should* be. Of course, you can pick that 
> analogy to death, but the point is, things don't have to 
> maintain a heavy resemblance to their origin.
>
>> Seeing as how we're all educated around with mathematic 
>> symbols as children, a language design which reflects what is 
>> most familiar will be the easiest to initially understand. 
>> Less friction means more productivity.
>>
>
> You're talking about very minor details that are trivial to 
> learn (I was only about 12 or 13 when I learned C). The 
> prodictivity drop in these cases is *purely* a *minor* upfront 
> cost, and with no ongoing cost (but does have ongoing 
> *benefits* because it's designed specifically with *it's own* 
> domain in mind instead being hampered by unnecessary ties to 
> some other domain).

I just don't see an argument for why we *shouldn't* make 
mathematical operations in code match those we where taught as 
children as close as possible.


> I've always agreed with the usual reasoning behind ":= and = 
> instead of = and ==", but in practice I don't like it becase 
> assignment is so *incredibly* common I don't want it to be a 
> 2-handed 3-keypress "Shift+Keypress and then another keypress". 
> Just one keypress, thank you. And yes, equality is fairly 
> common, too, but *UNLIKE MATH*, equality isn't quite *as* 
> common as assignment. Plus, "==" is even a little easier than 
> "two keypresses" since it's the same key, not two different 
> keys.

yes i agree. I'm not really a fan of using ':=' for assignment 
because of it's keystroke length, even if it *does* make more 
sense. Still, I don't see why '==' couldn't be 'is' and '!=' 
couldn't be 'not'. Thought this might get hard to read with all 
the 'and'/'or's everywhere:

     a: = 0
     b: = new Foo
     c: = "Bar"

     case a is 0 and b not null and c is "Bar" { ... } // hard to 
read
     case a == 0 and b !is null and c == "Bar" { ... } // better 
than:
     case a == 0 && b !is null && c == "Bar" { ... }