The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[John Thingstad]

På Fri, 30 May 2008 02:56:37 +0200, skrev David Combs <dkcombs at panix.com>:

> In article <rem-2008may08-005 at yahoo.com>,
> Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t  
> <usenet1.3.CalRobert at SpamGourmet.Com> wrote:
>>> From: "xah... at gmail.com" <xah... at gmail.com>
>>> the importance of naming of functions.
>>
>
> Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by Fortran  
> (1957?)?,
> and for sure the far-and-away the first as a platform for *so many*  
> concepts
> of computer-science, eg lexical vs dynamic ("special") variables, passing
> *unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that,
> via something it maybe termed a "thunk"), maybe is still the only one
> in which program and data have the same representation -- that it'd
> seem logical to use it's terminology in all languages.
>
> From C is the very nice distinction between "formal" and "actual" args.
>
> And from algol-60, own and local -- own sure beats "static"!
>
> And so on.
>
>
> To me, it's too bad that that hacker-supreme (and certified genius)
> Larry W. likes to make up his own terminology for Perl.  Sure makes
> for a lot of otherwise-unnecessary pages in the various Perl texts,
> as well as posts here.
>
> Of course, a whole lot better his terminology than no language at all!
>
>
> David
>
>

Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
I don't like the style, but many do.

--------------
John Thingstad