Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!topaz!gaynor
From: gaynor@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Silver)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: I Hate "Syntactic Sugar" (contrary opinion)
Message-ID: <5881@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 06:05:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.5881
Posted: Mon Sep 22 06:05:09 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 07:55:15 EDT
References: <8900044@uiucdcsb> <598@watmum.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 35

[The line-eater eats 'em, the rest of us snort 'em.]

I neglect the references for brevity.  Please, no litigation! :-)

I don't like the term 'syntactic sugar' either.  It takes too long to
say, and has such a 'cutesy' feel to it...  I think I prefer
'syntose'.  Who originated it?

Whichever, I feel 'syntose' connotes more than just 'notation'.  As
the original poster states, "'Notation' may be a more general term
than 'syntactic sugar,' but the concept involved is the same.".  Nail
struck on head.  In a similar vein, we use the word 'compiler' instead
of the more general term 'translator'.

As has been pointed out by others, it gives the feeling of a syntactic
construct that has been added not out of necessity, but for elegance,
cleanliness, consistency with other notations, or other GOOD reason.
You be the judge what reasons are good.

In its real life analogy, it simply adds a certain attraction.  But
too much of the stuff isn't good for the obvious reasons, tooth decay
and obesity, but also for reasons not QUITE as obvious.  How would you
feel, say, if you had to eat a five pound bag of sugar?  How would you
feel if your entire diet consisted of sweets, only?

Food for thought,
Silver
  uucp
    ...!topaz!gaynor
              remus!gaynor
  arpa
    gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu
    silver@gold.rutgers.edu
  real life
    In real life: ???