ok what are the rules
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
The Grand Negus wrote:
Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby")
Hope he grows up to be a C++ programmer :-D
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this?
He did earlier this year.
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
there were few discussions about rules for programming few days ago i am working in a company which is newly started and only two programmers there and no one to guide except CP so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow :):)
-
Here's the short answer, and we can go from there: we've developed a wide variety of major applications - including super-fast native-code compilers and super-smooth wysiwyg page layout programs - conveniently and efficiently without those things. So we haven't found them helpful or necessary. And we're more than willing to share our code and our ideas so others can see another way of doing things. Further comment on objects can be found here in this thread: [^] And further information about why we think our product is important can be found here: [^] Our two-page manifesto is on our website (www.osmosian.com).
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE? Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative? This statement is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Shog9 wrote:
IMHO, if your team is determined to argue, they'll find something to argue about.
No doubt.
Shog9 wrote:
Orthogonality should be a goal in and of itself - whether the code is orthogonal or procedural.
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate". It does not seem reasonable to us to hang verbs underneath nouns - or nouns underneath verbs, for that matter. Procedural programming tends to keep the two separate. In one 25,000-line Pascal program we wrote some time ago, for example, we only had two source files, called "nouns" and "verbs". It was a remarkably convenient and effective organization. In case you haven't run across my standard dissertation regarding cookies and ovens and baking, I'll repeat it here: In the object approach, a cookie is an object, and an oven is an object. Fine so far. But should we say "cookie.bake(oven)" or "oven.bake(cookie)" or something else, like "abstract.bake(cookie,oven)". We think all these options are unnatural, and prefer this actual Plain English code:
A cookie is a...
An oven is a...
To bake some cookies in an oven...Where the nouns and the verbs are "related" to the verb in the routine header (the third line above), but do not "hang" underneath each other - or under some artificial abstract class - as they would in the object approach. And we find the syntax much easier to think about, type in, and read, to boot. On a more philosophical note, we all know that cookies don't bake themselves, nor do ovens bake cookies without assistance (as the object model would lead us to believe). Someone bakes cookies in an oven. But the object approach - in great part due to the philosophical orientation of its creator - tries to ignore the existence of the active agent who is necessarily "outside" the system. If you get my drift...
The Grand Negus wrote:
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate".
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate. When coupled you've effectively defeated encapsulation to an extent. The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one. I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
i did program in foxpro using procedural approach and i know that i missed oop that time so much yes i build fairly complex programs using it but if had support of oop then it would take much less time so my point is 1) oop saves time 2) easy to debug 3) reduces complexity 4) make code easily understandable 5) and in the process of evolution oop is winning 6) and why is that more people are using oop concepts 7) when every thing is an object how you can escape oop and the big thing do you know why dinosaurs extinct
If your birthdate here is correct, you are about half my age. Which means I remember things - lived through things - that you haven't. I remember, for example, when General Motors was the clear winner in the evolution of the automobile industry, and the thought of a Japanese car on American highways was nothing but a joke. More to the point, however, I remember when the hierarchical/network approach to database was almost universally accepted as the best. In the "process of evolution", as you call it, this approach was not only winning, but had virtually won; it was backed by IBM and every other major player at the time and no one else stood a chance. But then along came Dr. Codd with a five-page paper describing the "spartan simplicity" of his relational approach, and things changed. But not right away. I quote the dedication found in his final book, written some 25 years later: "To fellow pilots and aircrew in the Royal Air Force during World War II and the dons at Oxford. These people were the source of my determination to fight for what I believed was right during the ten or more years in which government, industry, and commerce were strongly opposed to the relational approach to database management." I suspect I'll be writing a similar dedication to my final work 25 years from now. Now regarding the dinosaurs, let me be blunt. Clearly, you're not old enough, nor have you studied enough, to give me an accurate history of trends and events in data processing just 50 years past. So don't go pretending you know what happened thousands of years ago. For all you know, the dinosaurs might have been destroyed in a cataclysmic flood, and evolution wasn't even a factor.
You do realize that your tone is entirely pedantic... don't you? Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
You've got to be misunderstanding what I mean by framework. Let's try a different example. In what language are all the articles on this site written? C? C++? C#? VB? No! They're all written in English with examples written in these sub-languages. Back to the other example. My calculus book is written in English. It is not a German calculus book, it is an English calculus book, though it probably contains the same or similar formulae. The "framework" is English: the title, the preface, the chapter headings, the introductions, the explanations of the formulae, the problem statements, etc.
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read
Let's see it then.
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
I was searching through the patent database for an idea I had, and found that someone patented an algorithm that claims to solve the travelling salesman problem. Don't have the link on hand, but a google search should bring it up.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I would be willing to bet that most Plain English parsing engines are written in some kind of OOP language.
But ours isn't written that way. And we prefered not to write it that way - though we could have. And we believe that the ease with which we produced it, and the efficiency with which it runs, testifies to the fact that we made the right decision.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Someone with your experience should know that, at some point, you have to bridge the gap between the user and the chips in the machine.
Of course. And we did bridge that gap - we wrote a Plain English compiler, in Plain English, that generates native Intel machine code.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
OOP languages that compile down to real code are the best option we have right now.
We don't think so. We prefer to program in Plain English. Without objects. And we do.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that.
Because we've done it both ways and prefer Plain English without objects.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Sounds like you're stuck in the past.
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I read your definition of how Plain English works, and you described it in an object-oriented manner... ears, brain, calculator... I hate to burst your bubble but those are objects.
Objects in the sense of "nouns", yes. But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with. Our calculators don't calculate; they are used by us to calculate with. This is the fundamental issue we have with objects - they way they bind verbs underneath the nouns. This, we believe, is fundamentally wrong - a bad paradigm. All the other flaws of the object approach stem from this error.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with.
EHHHHH! Wrong. Our ears do in fact transmit the vibrations to the brain through electrical signals that are interpreted by our neural processes. All of this is encapsulated within the human body. Our body runs. Our legs through the combined effort of our muscles and joints move, after receiving signals from our nervous system from the direction of the brain which is encapsulated in the human body as a single object. There is also the person interpreting and causes the contemplation of extra dimensional encapsulation of the mind and spirit, but there is no denying that the mechanical encapsulation of the body is in fact Object Oriented and quite a success in communicating a very complex unified system.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: The object approach says, "inside"; we say, "outside". As said already this works with either A: small teams or B: uber top-notch programmers (not people that think they are). And, as sure as the sun rises, the more programmers you throw into the mix the more retards you're going to get. Btw, two PEP programmers using the same computer is a very small team.
I'm saying that the "print" function doesn't belong inside the console object. Period. Why? Because consoles don't print strings - strings are printed on consoles. The size of the team has nothing to do with this.
Why not? Consoles control how text is displayed within themselves. Does someone else dress you in the morning? No. You dress your self. Negus.Dress(); Now if every time a routine needed to print to a console, it would have to also possess the knowledge of how to print on a console. In the OO way, only the console needs to have this knowledge. The callers need only know that they have the option to request a print of the text they wish displayed. So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks. OO seperates the knowledge such that each of the parts involved are simpler. You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
there were few discussions about rules for programming few days ago i am working in a company which is newly started and only two programmers there and no one to guide except CP so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow :):)
This has got to be one of the longest threads in Code Project history. I'm guessing but I wouldn't doubt it.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE? Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative? This statement is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE?
The program on our website that processes credit card orders.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative?
Better than what? Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands? I think that answers itself. We're not saying that English is the best choice for programming; we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice. Americans, for example, will want to command their cars and their entertainment systems and their 'droids using their native tongue; and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well? We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate".
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate. When coupled you've effectively defeated encapsulation to an extent. The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one. I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate.
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one.
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
-
You do realize that your tone is entirely pedantic... don't you? Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
Why not? One should be open to any perspective that is true, however it may be presented; and opposed to anything that is false, no matter how pleasing the delivery.
-
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
In most cases, today, yes. But in the future we will see more and more man/machine communication taking place using natural languages. This is a shared dream of humans everywhere - think C-3PO or Data or the HAL 9000. And the dream, at least for us, has become a (partial) reality. When we wanted to tell our machine how to edit a file and compile a program and layout a page, we did it in Plain English. And it was a convenient, efficient, and enjoyable experience. Now we write all our programs this way.
-
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
We believe that the future of computing rests with the next generation; the current generation of programmers is much too jaded and too mercenary and simply too "used to" doing things the wrong way; they have too much to unlearn to be profitable disciples; it's not a good idea to put new wine into old wineskins. Some may be willing and able, but - I repeat - it's the next generation that we're betting on. Our full product (currently in the latter stages of development) is designed to capture the imagination of this younger generation. It includes a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside is a collection of "feelies" in a real leather pouch, together with an imaginative and engaging story about a young boy who meets an Osmosian Master and who - after taking the Osmosian Oath ("I promise never to program in any language but my own"), learns to program according to the precepts of the Ancient Ones. The Order was founded with this presentation in mind. But there is always something "cultish" about any group separates themselves from the pack, don't you think? I just checked, for example, and there are more than a million references on the web where the words "cult" and "LINUX" appear together; most of them, I suspect, from the early days. "Cult", someone once said, "is what the big church calls the little church." But why let that bother you? If you're interested in a Plain English development system - including interface, file manager, hex dumper, text editor, native-code generating compiler/linker, and wysiwyg page layout facility - written entirely in Plain English, and that can recompile itself on a bottom-of-the-line Dell in less than 3 seconds (that's right, 3 seconds) - but don't what to be "involved with the cult", just buy one. If it isn't what I just said it was, we'll give you your money back. There's more info on the website, in the Manifesto there, and a nice summary of the product's importance here:[^].
-
Why not? Consoles control how text is displayed within themselves. Does someone else dress you in the morning? No. You dress your self. Negus.Dress(); Now if every time a routine needed to print to a console, it would have to also possess the knowledge of how to print on a console. In the OO way, only the console needs to have this knowledge. The callers need only know that they have the option to request a print of the text they wish displayed. So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks. OO seperates the knowledge such that each of the parts involved are simpler. You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks.
Not so. "Write a string to a console" and "Write a string on a printer" are two separate routines in Plain English. And neither routine is "under" or "within" anything.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
Again, I don't know what you're imagining here, but it's not Plain English. To write a string on a console in Plain English all you have to say is
Write "this string" on the console.
Which, incidently, isn't much longer than
Console.Write("this string");
Our version also has fewer punctuation marks, and our marks are used in the standard English way. Furthermore, our version is suitable for both written and spoken communication, which is essential to folks (like us) who are developing a HAL 9000 like machine.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE?
The program on our website that processes credit card orders.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative?
Better than what? Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands? I think that answers itself. We're not saying that English is the best choice for programming; we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice. Americans, for example, will want to command their cars and their entertainment systems and their 'droids using their native tongue; and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well? We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands?
English is also artificial. Language, a set of symbols and syntax to convey meaning through its semantic use. English is the syntax for some Europeans and Americans, Australians, and is a second language to quite a number of people, but hardly for the world. If the language doesn't convey logic very well, meaning that most of the time when people use English they rarely state what they precisely mean. The use of double negatives comes to mind. We take for granted in English that the other person will understand what we really mean. So in this sense the language is flawed logically. So to use this language to convey logic isn't the best choice to me.
The Grand Negus wrote:
we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice
Inevitable for interfacing with mechanical systems that accept commands. But not inevitable for the sole means of programming those mechanisms. This is taking the easy way out, and attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A better language is needed to communicate logic. And an artificial syntax is just fine, as English is artificial also, all language is artificial, unless we're talking electro-chemical.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well?
Because the English abstraction doesn't convey logic that well. Its inheritantly flawed. Most of the times people really don't understand each other, they just surf the grey areas.
The Grand Negus wrote:
We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
Convenient maybe, but not efficient. Performance metrics need to be displayed to prove that and there aren't any comparing the efficiency and performance of PE against other languages. Efficiency of programming only works for a short while. I can say that I can better communicate logic in C# than I can in English. It didn't start that way but it is now. As far as Enlightening, please explain how it will enlighten. As far as I see its more of a restriction. We would gain enlightenment more by approaching problems from multiple angles which differe
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate.
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one.
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
I think you misread my statement. True OO. Meaning a system that seperates the algorithm from the data, not all algorithms are seperated, true, but most would be. The STL is a good example. The algorithms that operate on the containers are not part of the container, but most often functors that perform a given function. This is object oriented, but the algorithms are seperate from the data.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Heh heh, now your just being funny. A heart pumps blood. A heart beats. A liver filters, a brain thinks. A plant grows. Yeasts consume sugar and produce alcohol. This is where absolutes won't work. And that's the point of true Object Oriented designs, is that some functions are encapsulated within the object, and most should not be. In this case C++ is more advanced than C# as in C# everything is a class, that's flawed OO, but in C++ you can have the appropriate blend of Classes that have their functionality, functions that operate on them, and templates that define some processes as generic.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
What I am saying is that English isn't the right tool to convey logic to mechanical devices for their programming. It is flawed when it comes to logic. I wouldn't attempt to use OO in communicating with another HUMAN as that is what English is for. I'm using the right tool for the job. I'm not trying to convince you that C++ is better for communicating with humans, I'm saying that English is for English speaking people, but I am saying that C++ is better than English for communicating with machine language speaking machines. I'm also not expressing negative opinions about English. I'm pointing out the fact that it is flawed. Are you saying that it is in fact not flawed, which would imply that it is perfect? So please stop telling me to stop anything. This is a logical debate. Not personal.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder