Re: property/class ambiguity in languages with no letter case

I would stay *very* far away from the way that keywords are chosen in 
programming languages.

The keywords in ANSI C (some unknown version) are

*auto <>break 
<> sizeof 


Does anyone imagine that double, or short, or for, or if is a good name for a 
single-namespace ontology setup?  The other keyword are not much better, if at 

In a single-namespace setup like there is this incredible need to 
be precise in naming.   Any accidental imprecisions end up forever polluting 
the namespace, adding a significant burden for producers.



On 02/11/2014 09:00 AM, wrote:
> A general comment:
> When we articulate requirements on the naming of elements in 
> <>, let’s
> 1. not get too philosophical and
> 2. look at how keywords have been chosen in other formalisms, namely 
> programming languages.
> Of course, it is more difficult to find catchy keywords for a broad 
> conceptual schema that for the set of instructions in a programming 
> language. But on the other hand I find the implicit requirement of an 
> “ideal” grounding of <> in various human 
> languages too far reaching.
> Python, Java, etc. and most programming languages except for machine code 
> have dealt pretty well with mostly English-based keywords, and have been 
> used successfully by large, diverse audiences in multi-national development 
> teams.
> For instance, “print” in many languages from BASIC to Python is incorrect, 
> when compared to the etymology of the word, see 
> So IMHO, let’s not get too religious about naming.
> Best
> Martin

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:00:30 UTC