Considering that I do have a degree and have a very good understanding of computers and programming and have even taught both, I think your assumption is invalid. And I'm sure the same can be said for most others here as well (especially those who are regular helpers).
Now. Consistancy is a good thing. However, as has been mentioned, you should *not* make it consistant by allowing more bad coding styles. That is a bad argument, pure and simple. Forcing only valid syntax (ie. good coding styles) is not a bad thing.
So the question comes up... should we break all of the scripts that use bad coding that currently work because mIRC lets some things slip by so that coding is consistant -- you either use valid code or it won't work, or do we leave things as they are so that no scripts are broken, but coding styles cannot deteriorate further than they already are.
That's a difficult question because you don't want to break as many scripts as those changes would break. However, mIRC has made changes that forced better coding (6.20 did that) and it did break some scripts that weren't coded correctly. Of course, those changes were to actual errors rather than dropping sets of ()'s and {}'s, so forcing people to fix those was more valid than forcing them to add in all of the missing ()'s and {}'s. Even so, it is a precedent to forcing valid code. The question remains as to wheter Khaled will do that. Personally, I think valid syntax should always be required. It makes debugging a LOT easier and it also makes for less chance of producing errors.
In any case, I think everyone here (and most likely Khaled as well) will agree that mIRC should *not* allow *more* bad coding, no matter what. The real question is whether or not to force good coding for the items that can currently be coded "badly" and still work. You'd have support for that suggestion, but you won't have support for lowering the coding syntax requirements.
