Lambda the Ultimate

I disagree. I think that Java should get back in its box, and stop bothering us all by pretending that it is useful for anything other than glue code. Real algorithms are written in Fortran.

i'll take Perl, Java, assembly, then VB, in that order...

.. the rest of us are still puzzling over why Java uses extends for both interfaces and class inheritance in generics?

When you inherit an interface from another one you also use "extends". Since you can instantiate a generic with an interface type, "extends" for type bounds makes as much or as little sense as the other choice.

The difference is superficial anyway: in a class declaration, both do the same thing, except that "implements" puts more constraints on its argument (interfaces are just a restricted form of class).

"Microsoft coding conventions require a prefix "I" for interface types, so the distinction is present everywhere."

Actually, that comes from the good Borland guys they bought to design them a good language. Delphi code use this convention and TFoo for types so as to overcome the "limitation" that Pascal doesn't feature case-sensitive syntax. So, they couldn't adopt the common convention of types beginning with uppercases and variables with lowercase.

Actually, it's much more readable and clear...

Actually, it's much more readable and clear...

It has two potential drawbacks: accessability and encoding to plain text. Both can be solved by saying that there is an underlying textual syntax with explicit tagging of "kinds" (not unlike C struct, enum, etc.), while optionally they can be rendered using typesetting. So, in plain syntax: enum Foo = ...; struct Foo = ...; enum Foo Foo = ...; struct Foo Foo = ...; , in typeset syntax: Foo = ...; Foo = ...; Foo Foo = ...; Foo Foo = ...;

Uh, Drupal suspects <style> is malicious, so I had to fall back to <font>, I would have definitely used small-caps and gothic script otherwise :-)

Seriously, even CTM uses typesetting to differentiate between kinds, so why don't we see more of this in real PLs?

"Seriously, even CTM uses typesetting to differentiate between kinds, so why don't we see more of this in real PLs?"

Perhaps because typesetting is a pain in the ass for real programming?

Your favorite document editor begs to differ.

"in plain syntax: enum Foo = ...; struct Foo = ...; enum Foo Foo = ...; struct Foo Foo = ...; , in typeset syntax: Foo = ...; Foo = ...; Foo Foo = ...; Foo Foo = ...;"

Emacs sure knows how to automatically syntax-highlight based on keywords. But to simply do like the abov, you'd need to explicitely typeset ( perhaps by a bunch of key combos ) in order to deal with it.

Seriously, even CTM uses typesetting to differentiate between kinds, so why don't we see more of this in real PLs?
I believe the goal of embedding type information in a variable's name is to make it easier for someone else to read the code. In that sense I'd argue that the technique is used to make up for the deficiencies of common source code browsers/editors. The author of the code shouldn't be bothered to type any extra letters.

Seems to be a neglected area of PL research. Individual preferences for code layout and highlighting should be a function of your editor, not necessarily the code repository. Like offsides as a nesting technique - set the editor to view the code with that parameter. Like squiqly brackets {} or begin end - set it as a preference in your editor. There's lotsa pretty printers out there to make sure you get the view of the code in the one true way. Question is why editors don't just integrate configurable pretty viewers.

Of course, you have to worry about how to input the code (e.g. typeset code). But program editors could make looking at the code in numerous ways.

"Actually, that comes from the good Borland guys they bought to design them a good language."

Some of it may have come from the Borland language designers, but I think Microsoft used the "I" prefix for their COM interfaces as well.