Re: Euphoria features
Everett L.(Rett) Williams wrote:
>Building the pieces for peeking and poking is so foreign to
>Euphoria's intent.
Everett, it's extremely difficult not to be sarcastic when confronted
with such definitive statements, such deep insights, especially
considering your limited experience with the language.
>At least, inline assembler is highly efficient and isolatable to the
>scope of a procedure. The inline assembler can be made more readable
>and efficient by giving it access to Euphoria variables local to the
>procedure. It also avoids call overhead where efficiency is the major
>goal. It's final advantage is, that it is explicit.
First of all, we haven't got it. And I will probably spend the rest of
the night awake, puzzled how assembly code is more readable and / or
more explicit (!) than a bunch of peeks and pokes. If you want any
number of examples of horribly inefficient assembly, written by mere
dabblers, just ask - I wrote some of them.
>>I know campaigners like you almost never change their minds. But,
>>please, just for a moment, forget all ivory tower dictates, go into
>>the Archives and have a look around. You will find almost all
>>significant / interesting contributions depend heavily on those
basic
>>tools.
>You know nothing of the sort. I have spent a great deal of my career
>working with people at the leading edge of the business. I opposed
IBM
<snip>
Fortunately, you are not in a position to arbitrate what I know and
what I don't. I have not rubbed shoulders "with people at the leading
edge of the business", but I have been around long enough (possibly
longer than you) to recognize an old campaigner when I see one. It was
meant as a compliment, anyway.
Just a final note, I hope you will not be too offended. You are fast
developing quite a reputation for skillfully, subtly changing subjects
of your arguments (again a compliment full of admiration). Your
'portability' tack is likely to impress only the very impressionable.
I am not one them. If you want portability, switch / go back to C.
That's as close as you can get to it. Plain old C. You will find it on
every platform, in every environment, and it's usually affordable.
Beyond that THERE IS NO REAL PORTABILITY IN THE REAL WORLD! (BTW I do
not understand why the vast majority of this congregation seems to
hate C so much. Ignorance? (this will make me even more popular..)
After all, it is a remarkably simple, elegant language, a bit too
terse for my taste, but with very few flaws and still unsurpassed for
its power in the right hands. And it all started way back in the early
seventies and is still going strong. - Please notice, I am not
including
C++, a monstrosity, I believe *no one* completely understands, not
even its parents).
Enough! Stop! - Sorry. jiri
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
