1. Lying?
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Mar 11, 2009
- 933 views
Yeah, in a way you are right. But I cannot help it much. It's just my way.
Then seek some professional help.
Apart from that I cannot deny the impression (from the documentation and from some members of the forum) that EU's supporters use lies to convince people of EU. And I just cannot stand this. (Yes, I have a hard time saying this as politely as possible in English, sorry 
).
There is no "polite" way to accuse people of lying. By using that word, you are saying that the writers of the documentation have deliberately set out to deceive the readers by claiming things that the writers knew to be untrue.
Actually, it's just come to mind that you may be accusing me of lying? If so, I am truly offended and angry. Do you have the courage and honour to document the items that I have written, which you know to be a deliberate falsehood, and present them to the forum or privately? see below To use a colourful English language expression, which I'm sure translates into German well enough - why don't you grow a pair!? It is significant that you do not even use your real name.
I believe that once you overcome your biased viewpoint, any falsehoods in the documentation can be shown to be mistakes rather than lies. And do not yourself, make the mistake of confusing opinion with facts.
I do not wish to waste effort on this. I would rather you and I could work together to improve Euphoria, but I think you are making that a difficult thing to do.
Derek J Parnell, Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell dpar8777 xat bigpond xdot net xdot au
2. Re: Lying?
- Posted by Critic Mar 11, 2009
- 861 views
No, I did not think of you. And you all know what I think about some parts of the documentation. But how would you call this?
But then, I often wish for Euphoria features when coding in those other languages.
I am interested. Could you please give an example?
Sometimes it relates to static typing, or simply the ease of dealing with sequences.
Note that I doubted EU's static typing and never got any answer.
But when I looked at the "feature requests" on sourceforge I found this:
Compile-Time Type Checking
The parser should report an error at compile time if a type check error is detected. For example, two errors that could be detected at compile time:
procedure foo( sequence s ) atom bar = s end procedure foo(1)
So Matt is aware EU does not do static type checking, yet he mentions it as a feature he likes?!
If this was not a lie, I seriously apologize.
PS: How do you know I am German?
PPS: Feel free to remove this thread.
3. Re: Lying?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 11, 2009
- 868 views
- Last edited Mar 12, 2009
But when I looked at the "feature requests" on sourceforge I found this:
Compile-Time Type Checking
The parser should report an error at compile time if a type check error is detected. For example, two errors that could be detected at compile time:
procedure foo( sequence s ) atom bar = s end procedure foo(1)
So Matt is aware EU does not do static type checking, yet he mentions it as a feature he likes?!
Hm, I think that should probably be closed as 4.0 checks at compile time. For instance:
procedure hello(sequence def) puts(1, def & "\n") end procedure hello("John") hello("Jim") hello(10)
When that runs under 3.x, you will see Hello John, Hello Jim, Type Check Error. However, when run under 4.0, you get an immediate error during compile time.
I am curious what you do with your time? Who has this amount of time to devote to tearing people/things apart. Wow. If I had as much time as you have, I might save the world or something.
Jeremy
4. Re: Lying?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 11, 2009
- 828 views
- Last edited Mar 12, 2009
No, I did not think of you. And you all know what I think about some parts of the documentation. But how would you call this?
But then, I often wish for Euphoria features when coding in those other languages.
I am interested. Could you please give an example?
Sometimes it relates to static typing, or simply the ease of dealing with sequences.
Note that I doubted EU's static typing and never got any answer.
I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that the static typing of, e.g., Java can be very handy in catching errors, and wish that I had some of those features in euphoria. I should have elaborated.
But when I looked at the "feature requests" on sourceforge I found this:
Compile-Time Type Checking
The parser should report an error at compile time if a type check error is detected. For example, two errors that could be detected at compile time:
procedure foo( sequence s ) atom bar = s end procedure foo(1)
So Matt is aware EU does not do static type checking, yet he mentions it as a feature he likes?!
If this was not a lie, I seriously apologize.
This is a miscommunication. I wasn't clear enough obviously, but I guess that's a good reason to accuse me of lying. Or, I suppose that if you were aware of this, you could have figured it out yourself. It probably should have been obvious when you read the two statements (and obviously tried to put 2 and 2 together).
Matt
5. Re: Lying?
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Mar 11, 2009
- 853 views
- Last edited Mar 12, 2009
No, I did not think of you.
Ok then.
And you all know what I think about some parts of the documentation. But how would you call this?
But then, I often wish for Euphoria features when coding in those other languages.
I am interested. Could you please give an example?
Sometimes it relates to static typing, or simply the ease of dealing with sequences.
Note that I doubted EU's static typing and never got any answer.
But when I looked at the "feature requests" on sourceforge I found this:
Compile-Time Type Checking
The parser should report an error at compile time if a type check error is detected. For example, two errors that could be detected at compile time:
procedure foo( sequence s ) atom bar = s end procedure foo(1)
So Matt is aware EU does not do static type checking, yet he mentions it as a feature he likes?!
If this was not a lie, I seriously apologize.
Maybe it's a language issue. Matt's earlier post could be expressed as ...
Matt's "feature request" is not asking for static type checking, but asking for a change to when the type checking is done.
Currently some of Euphoria's static type checking (yes, it does do static typing) is done during the execution of the code. In those cases, it could be done earlier - at parsing time. This would mean that these types of mistakes could be reported without wasting time on continuing the parsing.
Static type checking is a part of Euphoria. However, the coder can choose to use it or not. If you wish to avoid it, then declare everything as object and not type checking is ever done - of course this can lead to some interesting bugs if one is not careful 
Euphoria only allows integers (30-bit) to be assigned to an integer type, only numbers to be assigned to atom types and only sequences to be assign to sequence types. This is static type checking.
PS: How do you know I am German?
I didn't know for sure; it was an educated guess.
6. Re: Lying?
- Posted by Critic Mar 11, 2009
- 838 views
- Last edited Mar 12, 2009
Matt, I am terribly sorry!
There are two options now:
- Leave this thread so everyone can see my persecution complex.
- Remove this thread.
I am perfectly fine with both.
7. Re: Lying?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 11, 2009
- 834 views
- Last edited Mar 12, 2009
But when I looked at the "feature requests" on sourceforge I found this:
Compile-Time Type Checking
The parser should report an error at compile time if a type check error is detected. For example, two errors that could be detected at compile time:
procedure foo( sequence s ) atom bar = s end procedure foo(1)
So Matt is aware EU does not do static type checking, yet he mentions it as a feature he likes?!
Hm, I think that should probably be closed as 4.0 checks at compile time. For instance:
procedure hello(sequence def) puts(1, def & "\n") end procedure hello("John") hello("Jim") hello(10)
When that runs under 3.x, you will see Hello John, Hello Jim, Type Check Error. However, when run under 4.0, you get an immediate error during compile time.
Actually, this is in the inline logic, because it tries to remove the type checks at the start of a routine, and throws an error if it encounters one. But anything not inlined will still slip through, so the enhancement is still valid.
Matt
