Should primitive datatypes be capitalized?

Question

If you were to invent a new language, do you think primitive datatypes should be capitalized, like Int, Float, Double, String to be consistent with standard class naming conventions? Why or why not?

By "primitive" I don't mean that they can't be (or behave like) objects. I guess I should have said "basic" datatypes.

Answer 1

If I were to invent a new language, it wouldn't have primitive data types, just wrapper objects. I've done enough wrapper-to-primitive-to-wrapper conversions in Java to last me the rest of my life.

As for capitalization? I'd go with case-sensitive first letter capitalized, partly because it's a convention that's ingrained in my brain, and partly to convey the fact that hey, these are objects too.

Answer 2

Case insensitivity leads to some crazy internationalization stuff; think umlauts, tildes, etc. It makes the compiler harder and allows the programmer freedoms that don't result in better code. Seriously, you think there's enough arguments over where to put braces in C... just watch.

As far as primitives looking like classes... only if you can subclass primitives. Don't assume everyone capitalizes class names; the C++ standard libraries do not.

Personally, I'd like a language that has, for example, two integer types:

1. int: Whatever integer type is fastest on the platform, and
2. int(bits): An integer with the given number of bits.

You can typedef whatever you need from that. Then maybe I could get a fixed(w,f) type (number of bits to left and right of decimal, respectively) and a float(m,e). And uint and ufixed for unsigned. (Anyone who wants an unsigned float can beg.) And standardize how bit fields are packed into structures. If the compiler can't handle a particular number of bits, it should say so and abort.

Why, yes, I program embedded systems and got sick of int and long changing size every couple years, how could you tell? ^_-