2010/4/14 Stéphane Rollandin <lecteur at zogotounga.net>:
>>>> Why if its not a problem for rest of the world of importing an
>>>> old-format
>>>> data,
>>>> for us this seems like an impenetrable barrier?
>>>
>>> because it's not data, it's syntax.
>>>
>> Wrong. Computer can't make a difference between one sequence of bytes
>> and another one.
>> It is we, humans, who making a difference and instructing computer to
>> process one data differently than another.
>
> well, if it so, why are people commonly speaking of Lisp as the only
> language where code format is the same as data format ? which allows macros,
> backquoting, etc. anyway I don't want to argue on this point, as the
> distinction is very clear to me, so if we don't agree let it be so. I
> believe I have said enough about the underscore issue in Squeak; I have
> nothing more to add about this.
>

Syntax is a tool for humans to let computer know what you want from it.
If you refusing to change the syntax because of various technical issues,
this means that you making yourself to be the servant of computer, to
please its expectations,
instead of making a computer to serve for you.

Before you start arguing why keeping old syntax rules better than a new ones,
if we leave all technical issues aside, i see a following benefits:
 - better interoperability with other languages (most modern languages
using underscores in identifiers)
 - better visual appearance of source code (seeing a := b is a way
better than seeing a _ b )

what benefits for keeping old syntax? I can't find any important one. And you?

> best,
>
> Stef
>

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.