of course! Reflecting on that, hmm I don’t have hope for some time … and I am not a believer … I think you want to tell me that I’m wasting my time on INN. Probably 
Naw we DO converse about Non-Xojo topics here as well sometimes
- says the guy writing a series on C#
2 Likes
and the JAVA “guy” - I can feel his voodoo needles on my back right now.
3 Likes
Exactly there is the problem: var is mostly used for typeless definitions like
var x = 70;
Var is used (in C# anyway) for compile-time type inference, not literally untyped per se. But your point still stands.
Just be glad they didnt try & use var & let like in JS
They mean such different things that dont have any equivalent in Xojo
I think thats the disappointment with “var”
Xojo adopted it as “var means dim” - as in Xojo they dont have any other option without adding type inference to the compiler (a non-trivial task)
But people who have encountered var in other languages like JS, C# etc expected type inference - not just a simple replacement of one keyword for another
2 Likes
API3 - let’s rename VAR to BUG.
Var could have been shorthand for Variant as a keyword/verb.
Then Var x would work and stand out against Dim.
Although you would lose the type safety of explicit definitions.
1 Like
Coulda shoulda woulda
What I really was that it was “to make it easier for folks coming from other languages” - but it seemed to be primarily from JS
Variant would have made sense in that respect since JS is quite loosely typed
But when you look at VAR in others like C#, Swift etc its short hand for “give this a strong type but COMPILER YOU figure out what the type it is”
Either way users got neither
3 Likes
It took a while, but I think that’s the ultimate answer to the original question
Could be a slogan idea for the marketing department.
1 Like