Re: Structures...
In response to Ralf's response to my version of his questionnaire:
I wasn't submitting it as a formal rebuttal of your questionnaire. Yours did
a superb job of pointing out that many people dislike structures just
because they're in C. *Mine* was submitted simply to point out that many
people *like* structures just because they're in other programming
languages.
Now, in response to some of Ralf's comments:
>However, which argument are *you* disproving ?
>That we want structures rather than a good practical language ?
>Am I not claming that structures make it *more* practical ?
Yes, but you haven't given us any examples to *prove* if they will make it
more practical. I've given more examples than most people will probably want
to read about why they are *not* practical in Euphoria.
>If you question is suppose to counter mine, should I assume you think a
good
>practical language is the opposite of C ?
>If so.. I wonder why we even have variables.." C has them too..!!! Arg.. I
>*hate* variables.. Do you want EUphoria to be C without pointers ?"
Now you're just being silly. :)
>>Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
>>helpfull in other languages ?
>>a) True
>>b) False
>
>The point of my question (which you appearently totally missed.. oh well)
>was that you were assuming structures to be a c-like thingie. Or at least,
>you were immidiately associating C with structures. I havent heard any one
>say 'Do we want basic with sequences ?' That was my point.
>Now, precisely in which way does your question counter mine ?
>Unlike you, I never used the fact that many language have structure as an
>argument, while you used the fact that C has structures as an argument.
No, I didn't. In "Problems with structures", I don't even mention C.
Again, you are completely missing the point. If you've actually *read* my
other posts on structures, you would know that the anti-structure position
is not as shallow as you have portrayed it to be here. You're beating up a
straw man, my friend.
>The point of discussion is to counter each others arguments. Precisely what
>should i do with your return questions ?
>I used those questions to make a point. (a point I made before, but was
>ignored, which motivated me to make these questions since they are a
>'little' more confronting). Your questions however, do not make any point,
o
>r it could off course be me... if they are suppose to.. please explain
>them.. I wanne see the light too, you know.
I used my questions to make a point, too. There are people on *both* sides
who are not thinking clearly on this issue. Some want structures just
because they like structures, and others dislike structures just because
they don't like C. Both positions are *emotional*. They argue for something
out of *feeling*. These are not compelling reasons for making changes to a
programming language.
Many of the people arguing *for* structures in Euphoria don't seem to have
investigated what Euphoria can *already* do. Yes, namespace issues cause
major headaches. But do we automatically need structures to solve them? No.
Euphoria is fundamentally *different* from all those other languages, and
structures won't fit without a lot of major changes to the language.
I'll admit, it was late when I wrote my version of your questionnaire, and I
probably shouldn't have sent it off without thinking more clearly about it.
For that, I apologize.
However, this does not change the fact that there is more to being
anti-structure than disliking C. There are a whole host of sticky problems
structures face in Euphoria. I invite you to read my earlier posts for
detailed, specific examples.
Gabriel Boehme
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
