[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/10/27]
* Tony Finch <dot@xxxxx.xx> [2006-10-27 18:25]:
> It proposes that introductory programming languages should use
> less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN
> instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind
> the fact that it's a struggle to even type the things,
Look, a multiplication sign!
× ← Over there!
I dunno. It remains more work to type, even if your editor isn't
dumber than technology from the stone age of personal computing,
but I spend a lot more time poring over code (and if it's just
code that I wrote 5 minutes ago) then I spend typing it. As long
as there's some restraint and the matter isn't taken to APL-esque
absurdity, the argument for better operator characters isn't so
plainly stupid. It would be nice if someday using a computer
didn't mean suffering bad typography.
In fact, not even monospace fonts are necessarily sacred. They
are currently necessary if you want to align blocks of text
across multiple lines, but that could easily be achieved with
proportional fonts by employing a scheme similar to elastic
tabstops (<http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/>;). I'm not
sure this can be implemented well without knowledge of the
document format, though, so it might not be feasible in a generic
editor.
Realistically, currently, one has to accept that computers suck
and stick with monospace fonts and ASCII operators...
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>;
There's stuff above here
Generated at 20:01 on 07 Nov 2006 by mariachi 0.52