note BrowserUk <blockquote><i>In have studied cognitive development in children for the purpose of AI ...</i></blockquote> <p>I cannot argue against your claimed experience. But ... <blockquote><i>thinking in negation </i></blockquote> <p>I can counter that. <p>Waiting, or repeating something <b>until something happens</b>; is not <i>thinking in negation</i>. <p>However, waiting or repeating something <b>while something <i>has not</i> happened</b>; is! <blockquote><i>even experienced programmers, ... make mistakes &#91;when&#93; code that contains negation of large expressions. </i></blockquote> <p>I'll take it that by "large expressions" you really mean "complex expressions". <p>And that points up the error in this justifiction. [until] (used properly) does not contain a negation. <p>[until] (used properly), captures the positive expression of the terminating condition. <P>Eg. Contrast: <ul><li><c>until( eof ) {</c> Loop until you get to the end of file. </li><li><c>while( !eof ) {</c> Loop while you haven't reached the end of the file. </li></ul> <p>Which requires "thinking in negation"? <blockquote><i>I have seen a similar argument put forth in the book Perl Best Practices</i></blockquote> <p>Never in the history of programming, has so much, been screwed up for so many; by so little justification. <p>This is far from the worst atrocity that book has inflicted. <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588"> <hr /> <font size=1 > <div>With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'</div> <div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div> <div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div> <div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. </div> </font> </div></div> 1018143 1018158