Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Just wondering why people like case sensitivity in a programming language? I'm not trying to start a flame war just curious thats all.
Personally I have never really liked it because I find my productivity goes down when ever I have tried a language that has case sensitivity, mind you I am slowly warming up/getting used to it now that I'm using C# and F# alot more then I used to.
So why do you like it?
Cheers
Consistency. Code is more difficult to read if "foo", "Foo", "fOO", and "fOo" are considered to be identical.
SOME PEOPLE WOULD WRITE EVERYTHING IN ALL CAPS, MAKING EVERYTHING LESS READABLE.
Case sensitivity makes it easy to use the "same name" in different ways, according to a capitalization convention, e.g.,
Foo foo = ... // "Foo" is a type, "foo" is a variable with that type
An advantage of VB.NET is that although it is not case-sensitive, the IDE automatically re-formats everything to the "official" case for an identifier you are using - so it's easy to be consistent, easy to read.
Disadvantage is that I hate VB-style syntax, and much prefer C-style operators, punctuation and syntax.
In C# I find I'm always hitting Ctrl-Space to save having to use the proper type.
Just because you can name things which only differ by case doesn't mean it's a good idea, because it can lead to misunderstandings if a lot of that leaks out to larger scopes, so I recommend steering clear of it at the application or subsystem-level, but allowing it only internally to a function or method or class.
Case sensitivity doesn't enforce coding styles or consistency. If you pascal case a constant, the compiler won't complain. It'll just force you to type it in using pascal case every time you use it. I personally find it irritating to have to try and distinguish between two items which only differ in case. It is easy to do in a short block of code, but very difficult to keep straight in a very large block of code. Also notice that the only way people can actually use case sensitivity without going nuts is if they all rigidly follow the same naming conventions. It is the naming convention which added the value, not the case sensitivity.
I maintain an internal compiler for my company, and am tempted to make it a hybrid - you can use whatever case you want for an identifier, and you have to refer to it with the same casing, but naming something else with the same name and different case will cause an error.
Dim abc = 1
Dim y = Abc - 1 ' error, case doesn't match "abc"
Dim ABC = False ' error, can't redeclare variable "abc"
It's currently case-insensitive, so I could probably fix the few existing errors and nobody would complain too much...
Many people who like case-sensitivity misunderstand what case-insensitivity means.
VB .NET is case-insensitive. That doesn't mean that you can declare a variable as abc, then later refer to it as ABC, Abc, and aBc. It means that if you type it as any of those others, the IDE will automatically change it to the correct form.
Case-insensitivity means you can type
dim a as string
and VS will automatically change it to the correctly-cased
Dim a As String
In practice, this means you almost never have to hit the Shift key, because you can type in all lowercase and let the IDE correct for you.
But C# is not so bad about this as it used to be. Intellisense in C# is much more aggressive than it was in VS 2002 and 2003, so that the keystroke count falls quite a bit.
There's a lot of answers here, but I'm surprised no one pointed out the obvious example that also makes fun of a stackoverflow competitor:
expertSexChange != expertsExchange
Case is very important when you use camel case variable names.
I believe it enforces consistency, which improves the readability of code, and lets your eye parse out the pieces better.
class Doohickey {
public void doSomethingWith(string things) {
print(things);
}
}
Using casing conventions makes that code appear very standarized to any programmer. You can pick out classes, types, methods easily. It would be much harder to do if anyone could capitalize it in any way:
Class DOOHICKEY {
Public Void dosomethingwith(string Things) {
Print(things);
}
}
Not to say that people would write ugly code, but much in the way capitalization and punctuation rules make writing easier to read, case sensitivity or casing standards make code easier to read.
I believe it is important that you understand the difference between what case sensitivity is and what readability is to properly answer this. While having different casing strategies is useful, you can have them within a language that isn't case sensitive.
For example foo can be used for a variable and FOO as a constant in both java and VB. There is the minor difference that VB will allow you to type fOo later on, but this is mostly a matter of readability and hopefully is fixed by some form of code completion.
What can be extremely useful is when you want to have instances of your objects. If you use a consistent naming convention it can become very easy to see where your objects come from.
For example:
FooBar fooBar = new FooBar();
When only one object of a type is needed, readability is significantly increased as it is immediately apparent what the object is. When multiple instances are needed, you will obviously have to choose new (hopefully meaningful names), but in small code sections it makes a lot of sense to use the Class name with a lowercase first character rather than a system like myFooBar, x, or some other arbitrary value that you'll forget what it does.
Of course all of this is a matter of context, however in this context I'd say 9 times out of 10 it pays off.
Case sensitivity is madness! What sort of insane coder would use variables named foo, foO, fOo, and fOO all in the same scope? You'll never convince me that there is a reason for case sensitivity!
It gives you more options.
Bell
bell
BEll
are all different.
Besides, it drives the newbies that were just hired nuts trying to find out why the totals aren't coming out right ;o)))
Because now you actually have to type everything in a consistent way. And then things suddenly begin to make sense.
If you have a decent editor - one that features IntelliSense or the same thing by another name - you shouldn't have any problems figuring out case-sensitive namees.
I usually spend some time with Delphi programming on vacation, and most of the other time I use only C++ and MASM. And one thing's odd: when I'm on Delphi, I don't like case sensitivity, but when I'm on C++ - I do. I like case sensitivity, becouse it makes similar words (functions, variables) look similar, and I like non-case sensitivity because it doesn't put excessive restrictions on syntaxis.
From
.NET Framework Developer's Guide
Capitalization Conventions, Case-Sensitivity:
The capitalization guidelines exist
solely to make identifiers easier to
read and recognize. Casing cannot be
used as a means of avoiding name
collisions between library elements.
Do not assume that all programming
languages are case-sensitive. They are
not. Names cannot differ by case
alone.
I think there is also an issue of psychology involved here. We are programmers, we distinguish minutely between things. a is not the same ASCII value as A, and I would feel odd when my compiler considers them the same. This is why, when I type
(list 'a 'b 'c)
in LISP (in the REPL), and it responds with
(A B C)
My mind immediately exclaims 'That's not what I said!'.
When things are not the same, they are different and must be considered so.
It's useful for distinguishing between types in code.
For example in Java:
If it begins with a capital letter, then its probably a class.
if its ALL_CAPS its probably a constant.
It gives more versatility.
Feels like a more professional way of coding. Shouldn't need the compiler to figure out what you meant.
I felt the same way as you a long time ago when i used VB3/4 a lot more. Now I work in mainly C#. But now I find the IDE's do a great job of finding the symbols, and giving good intellisense on the different cases. It also gives me more flexibility in my own code as I can have differnt meaning to items with different cases, which I do a lot now.
Also a good habit if your working in Linux where referencing file names is case sensitive. I had to port a Windows ColdFusion application to work in Linux and it was an utter nightmare. Also some databases have case sensitivity turned on, imagine the joy there.
It is good habit though regardless of platform and certainly leads to a more consistent development style.
IMHO it's entirely a question of habit. Whichever one you're used to will seem natural and right.
You can come up with plenty of justifications as to why it's good or bad, but none of them hold much water. Eg:
You get more possible identifiers, eg. foo vs Foo vs FOO.
But having identifiers that differ only in case is not a good idea
You can encode type-info into a name (eg. FooBar=typename, fooBar=function, foo_bar=variable, FOO_BAR=macro)
But you can do that anyway with Hungarian notation
Because it's how natural language works, too.
In progamming there's something to be said for case sensitivity, for instance having a public property Foo and a corresponding private/protected field foo. With IntelliSense it's not very hard not to make mistakes.
However in an OS, case sensitivity is just crazy. I really don't want to have a file Foo and foo and fOO in the same directory. This drives me cray everytime i'm doing *nix stuff.
For me case sensitivity is just a play on scopes like thisValue for an argument and ThisValue for a public property or function.
More than often you need to use the same variable name (as it represents the same thing) in different scopes and case sensitivity helps you doing this without resorting to prefixes.
Whew, at least we are no longer using Hungarian notation.
Case-insensitive languages don't easily generalize to non-ASCII character sets. Proper case conversion for a language other than English is not a straightforward task, and depends on system locale, among other things.
Case insensitivity is very difficult, unless you restrict the syntax to ascii (or only apply the case insensitivity to the ascii characters), and also you need to restrict the locale.
The rules for determining upper and lower case of characters is neither well defined, nor is it lossless.
Some characters can have more than one 'lowercase' form. Some people will disagree as to what the correct uppercase form should be.
(Some languages and environments allow for almost character to be used in names)
Consider In C# what is the difference between ToUpper() and ToUpperInvariant()?
After working many years with legacy VBScript ASP code, when we moved to .NET we chose C#, and one of the main reasons was case sensitivity. The old code was unreadable because people didn't follow any convention: code was an unreadable mess (well, poor VBScript IDEs helped on that).
In C# we can define naming conventions and everybody must follow them. If something is not correctly cased, you can rename it (with refactoring, but that's an IDE feature) and there won't be any problem because the class or variable will be named the same way all across the code.
Finally, I think it's much more readable if everything is correctly cased. Maybe it's faster to write without case sensitivity, but from a code reviewing and maintaining point, it's not the best thing because skipping through the code looking for something is easier. For example it's easier to find all the foo strings at a glance than looking for foo, Foo, FOO, FOo...
Related
According to General Naming Conventions of .NET framework:
X DO NOT use abbreviations or contractions as part of identifier names.
For example, use GetWindow rather than GetWin.
X DO NOT use any acronyms that are not widely accepted, and even if they are, only when necessary.
I've once consider GetName can be used for my method, but I believe it's not so sematically meaningful.
In order not to deviate too far from the naming convention, I've tried to figure out widely accepted acronyms, but I just run out of ideas for the following method:
String GetExplicitInterfaceMemberImplementationName(MemberInfo info) {
return info.DeclaringType.Name+"."+info.Name;
}
For this case, it is, in fact, not really longer than the statement, but just the identical length; and Type.Delimiter should be used rather than ".". However, the naming problems so often bothers me.
So, what method name should I declare? And for the long-term solutions, what can I do?
For an additional question, is there an API out of the box does the same thing?
Edit 1:
Stop and think, such a good suggestion for me.
For the purpose of its statement, also for semantic and not breaking the naming conventions, I got an idea from [AddAttributeStoreCommand.TypeQualifiedName Property]; so I now declare it as:
public static String GetTypeQualifiedName(this MemberInfo info) {
return info.DeclaringType.Name+"."+info.Name;
}
Yet, a long-term solution hasn't come up ..
Edit 2:
I'm not sure whether it's a good practice to name like this ..
public static String GetTypeDotItsName(this MemberInfo info) {
return info.DeclaringType.Name+"."+info.Name;
}
Code Complete 2nd Edition has this to say about method name length:
Make names of routines as long as necessary
Research shows that the optimum average length for a variable name is 9 to 15 characters. Routines tend to be more complicated than variables, and good names for them tend to be longer. Michael Rees of the University of Southampton thinks that an average of 20 to 35 characters is a good nominal length (Rees 1982). An average length of 15 to 20 characters is probably more realistic, but clear names that happened to be longer would be fine.
Note the word average. If the method name is as clear as possible, and it's 50 characters, then whatever. It's fine.
However, the book does mention another thing a few paragraphs up:
If you have routines with side effects, you’ll have many long, silly names, The cure is not to use less-descriptive routine names; the cure is to program so that you cause things to happen directly rather than with side effects.
Of course, side effects aren't the issue here, but you can extend the idea. Ask yourself "Is this long, silly name popping up because I'm doing overly complicated stuff?" If you're sure that you need an ExplicitMemberInterfaceImplementationName, then fine, but it can at least be something to stop and think about.
1) Put in the information that is needed to make the purpose of the method clear. You can probably halve the length of your example name without any loss of understanding about what it fits.
2) guidelines are guidelines. Don't slavishly follow rules when they become counter productive. If using an abbreviation makes it easier to read and understand the code, use abbreviations. The main thing is to try to limit abbreviations to long names that are commonly used, and use intuitive and commonly used abbreviations for them, so that anyone reading your code can easily work out what they mean. For example, decl is a common abbreviation for declaration, and difficult to mistake for anything else.
3) sometimes you can avoid the need to abbreviate by using a synonym.
I think you could probably drop interface and member from your name without losing the meaning.
But perhaps the "explicit interface implementation name" is actually the "explicit name" - explicit has a well defined meaning, especially in the context if your class, and you can always add the fully watertight legal definition in your documentation comment. So: "GetExplicitName"
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
There Currently is a local debate as to which code is more readability
We have one programmer who comes from a c background and when that programmer codes it looks like
string foo = "bar";
if (foo[foo.Length - 1] == 'r')
{
}
We have another programmer that doesn't like this methodology and would rather use
if (foo.EndsWith("r"))
{
}
which way of doing these types of operations is better?
EndsWidth is more readable to someone who has never seen C or C++, C#, or any other programming language.
The second one is more declarative in style but I can't tell you objectively if it is more readable sine readability is very subjective. I personally find the second one more readable myself but that is just my opinion.
Here is an excerpt from my article:
Most C# developers are very familiar
with writing imperative code (even
though they may not know it by that
name). In this article, I will
introduce you to an alternative style
of programming called declarative
programming. Proper declarative code
is easier to read, understand, and
maintain.
As professionals, we should be
striving to write better code each
day. If you cannot look at code you
wrote three months ago with a critical
eye and notice things that could be
better, then you have not improved and
are not challenging yourself. I
challenge you to write code that is
easier to read and understand by using
declarative code.
Number 2 is better to read and to mantain.
Example: Verify the last 2 characters ...
Option 1)
if (foo[foo.Length - 1] == 'r' && foo[foo.Length - 2] == 'a')
{
}
Option 2)
if (foo.EndsWith("ar"))
{
}
last 3? last 4?...
I come from a C/C++ background and I vote for Endswith!
Readability rules, especially if it implies intent.
With the first example I must discover the intent - which is left for interpretation. If it appears to have a bug, how do I know that's not intentional?
The second example is telling me the intent. We want to find the end character. Armed with that knowledge I can proceed with evaluating the implementation.
I think the second way is better because it is more easy to read and because the first one duplicates logic of EndsWith method which is bad practice.
I think the right answer would be the one that is actually correct. EndsWith properly returns false for empty string input whereas the other test will throw an exception trying to index with -1.
Not only is EndWith more readable, but also more 'correct'.
As a rule, if there is a framework method provided to do the job ... use it.
What if foo == string.Empty?
IMO, the intent of the original author is clearer in the second example. In the first, the reader must evaluate what the author is trying to accomplish by pulling the last index. It is not difficult, but requires more effort on the part of the reader.
Both approaches are valid, but the endswith method is easier to read in my opinion. It also does away with the potential to make typing mistakes etc with the more complicated form..
EndsWith is probably safer. But the indexer is probably faster.
Endswith probably checks to see if the input string is empty. They will probably both throw null reference exceptions. And the indexer will fail is the length is 0.
As for readability, they both say the same thing to me, but I have been programming for a while. The .EndsWith(...) is probably faster to grasp without considering context.
It pretty much does the same thing. However, it gets more complicated with more than one character in the endswith argument. However, the first example is slightly faster as it uses no actual functions and thus requires no stack. You might want to define a macro which can be used to simply make everything uniform.
I think the main criteria should be which of these most clearly says what the developer wants to do. What does each sample actually say?
1)Access the character at position one less than the length, and check if it equals the character 'r'
2)Check if it ends with the string "r"
I think that makes it clear which is the more maintainable answer.
Unless and until it does not affect the program performance, no problem you can use either way. But adding code comments is very important for conveying what is being accomplished.
From an error handling standpoint, EndsWith.
I much prefer the second (EndsWith) version. It's clear enough for even my manager to understand!
The best practice is to write code that is easily readable. If you used the first one, developers that are debugging your code may say, "What is this dev trying to do?" You need to utilize methods that are easily explained. If a method is too complicated to figure out, retract several methods out of it.
I would definitely say the second one, legibility and simplicity are key!
Also, if the "if" statement has one line, DONT BOTHER USING BRACES, USE A SINGLE INDENTION
Remember that in classic C, the only difference between a "string" and an array of characters is that terminating null character '\0', so we had to more actively treat them accordingly and to make sure that we did not run off the end of the array. So the first block of code bases its thought process on the concept of an array of characters.
The second block of code bases the thought process on how you handle a string more abstractly and with less regard to its implementation under the covers.
So in a nutshell, if you are talking about processing characters as the main idea behind your project, go with the first piece. If you are talking about preparing a string for something greater and that does not necessarily need to focus on the mechanics of the ways that strings are built -- or you just want to keep it simple -- go with the second style.
Some of this might summarize others' contributions at this point, but more analogously put, are you playing "Bingo();" or are you "playing a game with a two-dimensional array of random integers, etc.?"
Hopefully this helps.
Jim
"Code is written to be read by humans and incidently run by computers" SICP
EndsWith FTW!!
I just installed Reshaper 4.5 and it has come up with the following suggestions:
return this.GetRuleViolations().Count() == 0; -- REMOVE this.
new string[] { this.ID.ToString(), this.Registration } -- REMOVE string, MAKE ANONYMOUS TYPE
int i = Method.GetNumber(); -- REPLACE int WITH var
Should I do these?
I think in some cases it is going to make the code less readable but will it improve performance? what are the benefits of making these changes?
Thanks
1) The explicit this pointer is only necessary when the reference would otherwise be ambiguous. Since GetRuleViolations is defined on the type, you most likely do not need this.
Another point here is that if GetRuleViolations return an IEnumerable of something, you will generally be much better off using Any() instead of Count() == 0 as you risk enumerating the entire sequence.
2) String can be inferred from the initialization.
3) Resharper prefers var over specific types.
Apart from the obvious benefit of your little square going green, if you are writing code that will be maintained by someone else later, it makes good sense not to use your personal preference in coding syntax. Resharper is becoming useful in formatting code in a way that is recognisable to a very wide audience.
I belong to the school of thought that says it doesn't matter who's way is right. If we all stick to a pattern, we'll all find it easier to read each others code.
So, in my humble opinion, don't change the default resharper settings. Just accept that if you use the defaults, you make life simple for everyone.
I think the first one is for the purpose, if you want to make "GetRuleViolations()" a static method. Then you have not to remove the "this" identifier.
For the 3rd one - the one that annoys me the most. It provides the reader with less information and i think it's just a matter of showing off a newish feature.
I'd say - use var when you know the return type and use the correct object type when you do not like this:
var reader = new XmlReader(.... // Implicit
XmlReader reader = SomeClass.GetReader() // Explicit when you can't be sure
First one: Resharper is asking about removing this which is just a style thing to me. Nothing more, keeping it won't harm performance in any way. It is just a matter of readability.
For second and third: Resharper normally prefers using var instead of specific data type, that's why the suggestions. I believe it is a matter of personal choice and provides no extra gain other than readability.
The first seems unclear to me. You usually don't have to prefix this. as long as there are no ambiguities, which I cannot tell from this example. Resharper is probably right. The other two won't improve performance, the compiled result will be the same. It's just a matter of taste and, of course, your coding guidelines.
The first one should be configurable. As far as I remember, you can tell ReSharper whether you want to have "this." in front of only fields, methods, both or none.
Using "var" will not change anything in the generated CIL code, so the performance will stay the same. I haven't used ReSharper for some time and I don't know why it promotes anonymous types so aggressively, but one advantage of "var" is that it's more resistant to change.
Meaning if, instead of calling Method.GetNumber(), you called a wrapper, eg. Filter(Method.GetNumber()) in the same line that returns a Nullable, you won't have to update the variable's type.
None of these will have any effect on performance, only on readability.
I find suggestions 1 and 2 to be more readable, and 3 less readable than your original code.
But you don't need to just follow these suggestions if, e.g., you find them less readable or if they violate your company's code style standard. When you put the cursor on the squiggly line, press Alt-Enter to show the list of Contex Actions. One of them will be to to change the severity of the inspection; you can not show it at all or show it as a hint. You can find a complete list of inspections at ReSharper | Options | Code Inspection | Inspection Severity.
I'm not too quite sure about what i should do about a grouped set of classes.
My situation: I have 11 classes that relate only to the class Character.cs, but all of those classes (including Character.cs and CharacterManager.cs) are within the namespace Models.Characters.
Which is the more "proper" or preferred way of naming the classes:
(examples):
CharacterDetails.cs
CharacterSprites
CharacterAppearance
CharacterClientRights
CharacterServerRights
or:
Details.cs
Sprites
Appearance
ClientRights
ServerRights
(They're all noticed in Models.Characters (so eg. Models.Characters.CharacterDetails, Models.Characters.Appearance)
Thanks in advance.
Personally for me it"depends". Usually I would prefix everything with the word Character to keep things consistant, however if you have everything already under the Character namespace the Character prefix could seem redundant.
I could easily see going with the shorter convention of Models.Character.[X] if there never will be another class called Details, if there for instance could be UserDetails then Details and UserDetails could be confusing when looking back at the code weeks or months from now and I would personally prefer then the CharacterDetails option.
In the end it is your personal preference, what more accurately describes your domain, Details or CharacterDetails?
Personally I'd stick with the second method as that is what namespaces are for: grouping related sets of classes. The first method is just making the class names longer with negligible benefits.
Your namespace already is grouping its classes under the Characters umbrella, so I would not name your classes with the Character moniker.
There is probably no right or wrong answer here. I find myself prefering your first style, but I have used the second style as well. I think in this specific situation if I were a caller of your API I would find it easier to read code that used the first style.
It is really a personal preference.
I would favor
CharacterDetails
CharacterSprites
CharacterAppearance
CharacterClientRights
CharacterServerRights
Because it is more readable.
You are typically going to have a using statement of
Models.Characters.Appearance
Unless you are going to do the full notation.
I would favor anything that would increase readability. It might matter on the project and the team you are working with. If it is just you than do what you like best and would help you maintain the code in the future.
As long as you pick one and consistantly use that throughtout your code, then whichever one you choose is the right one.
My personal choice is your second option. If your namespace is character, I see no reason to use the prefix character in the class name.
Think about ambiguity that may be created by naming class. For example if I have a class called "Thread" denoting "CharacterThread" (hypothetical) and if some other class uses two namespaces
Models.Characters
System.Diagnostics
I will have to fully qualify the Thread name everytime I use it ... which can be a pain sometimes
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What reasoning exists behind making C# case sensitive?
I'm considering switching from VB.NET to take advantage of some language features (CCR and yield), and understanding the reasoning behind this difference may make the transition easier.
[UPDATE]
Well I took the plunge three days ago. Learning C# hasn't been particularly hard, I could barely remember my C++ days in the late 90's though.
Is the Case Sensitivity annoying me? not as much as i'd thought... plus I am finding that it actually is advantageous. I'm actually really happy with the CCR as a asynchronous coordination programming model. If only I had more time on the current project i'd port the code base into C# to take full advantage. Wouldn't be fair to my client though.
Assessing my current project now and I'm seeing blocking threads EVERYWHERE! AHhhh!!!
[UPDATE]
Well i've been programming in C# for nearly a year now. I'm really enjoying the language, and I really REALLY hate crossing over to VB (especially when it is unavoidable!)
And the case sensitivity thing? not even an issue
C# is case sensistive because it takes after the C style languages which are all case sensitive. This is from memory here's an MSDN link which is not working for me right now I can't verify.
I would also like to point out that this is a very valid use case:
public class Child
{
private Person parent;
public Person Parent
{
get { return parent;}
}
}
Yes you can get around this using prefixes on your member variables but some people don't like to do that.
They were probably thinking "we don't want people using SoMeVaRiAbLe in one place and sOmEvArIaBlE in another.
Consider the variable names in the following pseudocode:
class Foo extends Object { ... }
...
foo = new Foo();
Having case sensitivity allows conventions which use case to separate class names and instances; such conventions are not at all uncommon in the development world.
I think the fact that case can convey information is a very good reason. For example, by convention, class names, public methods and properties start with an uppercase letter by convention. And conversely, fields and local variables start with a lowercase letter.
After using the language for years, I've come to really enjoy this, code is much easier to read when you can read information simply from the casing of the words.
And that's why people do this sometimes, and it can make sense:
Foo foo = new Foo();
I do that all the time, it's very useful. If you think about it in a more useful situation like this:
Image image = Image.LoadFrom(path);
It just makes sense sometimes to call the instance the same thing as the class name, and the only way to tell them apart is the casing. In C++ the case-sensitivity becomes even more useful, but that's another story. I can elaborate if you're interested.
I think that having case sensitive identifiers can make code more readable, through the use of naming conventions, well, and even without naming conventions, the consistency enforced by case sensitivity ensures you that the same entity is always written the same way.
C# inherits the case sensitivity from C and Java, which it tries to mimic to make it easier for developers to move to C#
There might have been some good reasons for making C case sensitive when it was created three decades ago, but there don't seem to be any records on why. Jeff Atwood wrote a good article advocating for that case sensitivity might no longer make sense.
Probably copied from C, C++, Java, etc. or may be kept the same on purpose so that its similar to what other langauges have.
It was just a matter of taste on the C# langauge designer team. I am willing to bet it was for comonality with other C family languages. It does however lead to some bad programming practices such as a private field and its associalted property differing only in the case of the first letter.
EDIT:
Why might this be cosidered bad.
class SomeClass
{
private int someField;
public int SomeField
{
get { return SomeField; }
// now we have recursion where its not wanted and its
// difficult for the eye to pick out and results in a
// StackOverflowException.
}
}
Prefixing private fields with an _ or an m might make it easier to spot. Its not a huge biggie and personally I sill do exactly what I have just said is bad (so sue me!).
Parsing is also a tiny bit easier for case-sensitive languages. As long as there's no good reason to choose the non-case-sensitive way, why bother?
You are looking at this in a very limited way - from your point of view. Language designers must take into account a whole other set of considerations: cultural reasons, compatibility with other languages, common coding practices etc
All modern languages use case-sensitivity: which ones don't?
As someone who used BASIC for a number of years I got very tired of developers using different cases for the same variable. This sort of thing is very tiresome to look at and encourages sloppy programming. If you can't be bothered to get the case right - what else can't you be bothered to do?
From
.NET Framework Developer's Guide
Capitalization Conventions, Case-Sensitivity:
The capitalization guidelines exist
solely to make identifiers easier to
read and recognize. Casing cannot be
used as a means of avoiding name
collisions between library elements.
Do not assume that all programming
languages are case-sensitive. They are
not. Names cannot differ by case
alone.
My best guess as to the why it is case sensitive would be because Unix is case sensitive. Dennis Ritchie, the father of C also co-wrote Unix, so it makes sense that the language he wrote would coincide with the environment available at that time. C# just inherited this from its ancestor. I think this was a good decision on Microsoft's part, being that windows paths are not case sensitive.
I assume you'd like to see code like:
SomeField=28;
someField++;
somefield++;
SOMEFIELD++;
compiled as if SomeField in any casing variation is the same variable.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea. It encourages laziness and/or carelessness. Why bother properly casing the thing when it doesn't matter anyway? Well, while we're at it, maybe the compiler should allow misspellings, like SoemField++?
Naming. Names are hard to come by and you don't want to have to create a new name when talking about something similar or have to use some notation to set them apart.
Such scenarios are properties for fields or arguments in the constructor that you are about to assign to fields.