Since I am an assembly language guru, and since I never had before
encountered the IMP operator, I was curious as to why this ridiculous
abomination would ever be included in ANY programming language.

Check this article from over 10 years ago:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/184089/why-dont-languages-include-implication-as-a-logical-operator

These are the definitive responses:

"Implication is very counter-intuitive, even to logic-minded people
such as programmers. The fact that three out of the four truth table
entries are true surprises many people."

"At the same time, there is an easy workaround: use operators ! and ||"

That is, "A => B" is equivalent to "~A OR B."

But Microslop included the IMP operator. Why?

Because Microslop believed that they were the authority on
everything digital. But no one ever used Microslop IMP.
The "authority" thus failed big time.

C does not have it, because C, like FOSS, is created by
rational and competent people.

On 3/24/2024 12:07 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> Since I am an assembly language guru, and since I never had before
> encountered the IMP operator, I was curious as to why this ridiculous
> abomination would ever be included in ANY programming language.
>
> Check this article from over 10 years ago:
>
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/184089/why-dont-languages-include-implication-as-a-logical-operator
>
> These are the definitive responses:
>
> "Implication is very counter-intuitive, even to logic-minded people
> such as programmers. The fact that three out of the four truth table
> entries are true surprises many people."
>
> "At the same time, there is an easy workaround: use operators ! and ||"
>
> That is, "A => B" is equivalent to "~A OR B."
>
> But Microslop included the IMP operator. Why?
>
> Because Microslop believed that they were the authority on
> everything digital. But no one ever used Microslop IMP.
> The "authority" thus failed big time.
>
> C does not have it, because C, like FOSS, is created by
> rational and competent people.
>
>

I just checked behavior of IMP in QB64. It honors it but results are
sometimes inconsistent. It is buggy, and since nobody uses it they
haven't removed the bugs, I think.

There are other issues in QB64 as well which I communicated about in the
QB64 forum. The language is unfortunately case-insensitive, but when you
invoke Option _Explicit to help you define your variables promptly
throughout the code, especially to catch mistypes, it creates conflicts
in some of the statements that automatically interpret variable names in
them as upper case even when typed in lower case, creating errors when
there has not been any error. So the attempts go against each other and
there's no way out unless you modify your code using some other
statements. Puh..

QB64 looks like is being used heavily in coding games, or creating
music, etc. So I guess such glitches didn't get to a point to get them
corrected. If you could modify your code to get around them, you were
good to go. Hehe :)

No such frivolity, though, allowed in a programming language that's used
in scientific computations. Looks like I have to fucking go back to C++
or C again.

I was satisfied with C++ each time I attempted it, so I think it would
be it :-)

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:07:38 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

> Since I am an assembly language guru ...

Did you figure out the bit about (not) all prime numbers being odd, yet?