Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!akgua!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!wsmith
From: wsmith@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: I Hate "Syntactic Sugar"
Message-ID: <8900044@uiucdcsb>
Date: Tue, 9-Sep-86 11:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.8900044
Posted: Tue Sep  9 11:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 02:08:17 EDT
Lines: 56
Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcsb:8900044:000:3123
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!wsmith    Sep  9 10:35:00 1986




		I Hate (the term) "Syntactic Sugar"

One of the plethora of terms used in computer science is the term "Syntactic
Sugar."  As the title of this note suggests, I am not too fond of the term 
and would like to propose a substitute term.  As a point of history, when the 
world was created, there was no 'syntactic sugar', there were fructose, 
glucose, lactose, and probably lots of other sugars, but there was no 
syntose ('syntactic sugar').  As the world became more advanced, it became in 
need of other forms of sweets.  Chocolate was invented and the world was 
satisfied.  Unfortunately, computer scientists had an insatiable sweet tooth 
and after much cogitating, they invented the now world famous "Syntactic 
sugar."

What is wrong with 'syntactic sugar?'  Does it rot the teeth?  Does it add to 
the waistline?  Is it carcinogenic?   I doubt it.  One of the many products 
of the different scholarly disciplines is terminology.  If it is important, 
it has a name.  These names are completely arbitrary.  Naming conventions 
allow easier use of names when there are many names that are related within 
the discipline.  Unless there is a strong reason, when there already exists a 
good term for something, a new name is not invented.  That is what is wrong 
with 'syntactic sugar.'  It is a term that has a perfectly adequate 
synonym that has fallen into disuse because 'syntactic sugar' is (or in my 
opinion, was) a cute term.

What does 'syntactic sugar' mean?   It means the details used in
representing a complicated structure.  Originally referring to the syntax
of programming languages, it referred to things added to the syntax that made
it more readable or palatable to mortal humans who weren't able to read the
raw meaning of the program.  Palatable, to the originator of the term, meant
sugar, so we have syntax + sugar = 'syntactic sugar'.   Voila!  The term, 
usually used in the pejorative as in "That's only 'syntactic sugar.'  It's not 
important" refers to how an idea, concept, data item, or for computer science,
a program is represented.  The plain old, un-cute term for this is 'notation.'
The professor lecturing on the difference between C and Pascal could have 
just as easily said, "The THEN in an IF statement is only 'notation,' it isn't 
an important difference between the two languages."

What are the differences between the terms 'syntactic sugar' and 'notation?'
The word 'notation' can be found in the dictionary.  Students are familiar with
the term and when they hear the professor say it's 'notation', they can easily
fit the word into the context and understand the meaning.  On the other hand,
'syntactic sugar' is not a familiar term.  They must gather the meaning from 
the context which often does not always provide the correct meaning for the
term.  'Notation' may be a more general term than 'syntactic sugar,' but the
concept involved is the same.

I would like to propose that the term 'syntactic sugar' should fall into
disuse and disrepute to be replaced by the more clear and explicit
term 'notation.'

Bill Smith
ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith
wsmith@b.cs.uiuc.edu