1. Q about other languages...
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF084C.B2E12720
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why do most other languages like Java, C, C++, and Perl look like a text =
editor took a text file and threw it up? It doesn't even look like =
English, or anything resembling it (at least Eu does.). WHY? What's =
with all the brackets and stuff?
Asking another stupid question,
Mike Hurley
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF084C.B2E12720
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Why do most other languages like Java, C, C++, and =
Perl look=20
like a text editor took a text file and threw it up? It doesn't =
even look=20
like English, or anything resembling it (at least Eu does.). =
WHY? =20
What's with all the brackets and stuff?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Asking another stupid question,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mike Hurley</FONT></DIV>
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF084C.B2E12720--
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
2. Re: Q about other languages...
- Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
Sep 26, 1999
-
Last edited Sep 27, 1999
Mike Hurley wrote:
>Why do most other languages like Java, C, C++, and Perl look like a text
editor took a text file and threw it up? It doesn't even look like English,
or anything resembling it (at least Eu does.). WHY? What's with all the
brackets and stuff?
>
>Asking another stupid question,
>Mike Hurley
>
>
Because they all grew up from C which was written so long ago that people
didn't worry about esthetics, only keyboard efficiency and grammatical
consistency. When all you have is a typewriter terminal or cards and a line
printer that prints fixed text, why worry about such issues. Euphoria
appears to be a fairly fresh cut done by someone who had seen other
languages, but did not feel limited by them...or maybe did feel limited by
them and did Euphoria to fix that feeling.
Plus, C has had about a million things grafted onto it since it's inception.
And since most of these other languages view themselves as replacements or
heirs of C, that is what you get. Besides, having learned to read that awful
mess, you can then boast that you can program with a "real" programmers
tool...yuck! Euphoria appears, spiritually to be an heir of early COBOL more
than anything like C. Of course, we no longer have the infamous "DATA
DIVISION" or any of it's confreres, but we do have a procedural language
that reads a little like an outline of a process in English(or whatever
non-symbolic language you might choose). I even object to the += stuff
because it takes away from the clean, mathematical and logical design of the
language for a short hand...but I'll live and it is useful.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
3. Re: Q about other languages...
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Everett L.(Rett) Williams wrote:
> Euphoria appears, spiritually to be an heir of early COBOL more
> than anything like C. Of course, we no longer have the infamous "DATA
> DIVISION" or any of it's confreres, but we do have a procedural language
> that reads a little like an outline of a process in English(or whatever
> non-symbolic language you might choose). I even object to the += stuff
> because it takes away from the clean, mathematical and logical design of the
> language for a short hand...but I'll live and it is useful.
Euphoria seems to contain some of the better bits of just about every
programming language (except Intercal, which _has_ no good bits.).
To me, Euphoria appears to be Lisp implemented by a Pascal programmer.
There are also some very creative new ideas included, some of which don't
work all that well. Specifically, the data storage scheme, which inflates your
data files dramatically. (Maybe a Microsoft programmer designed that part...:)
Irv
THE LESSER-KNOWN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES #12: LITHP
This otherwise unremarkable language is distinguished by the absence of
an "S" in its character set; users must substitute "TH". LITHP is said
to be useful in protheththing lithtth.
4. Re: Q about other languages...
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:50:55 -0400, Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM> wrote:
>Plus, C has had about a million things grafted onto it since it's
inception.
>And since most of these other languages view themselves as replacements or
>heirs of C, that is what you get. Besides, having learned to read that
awful
>mess, you can then boast that you can program with a "real" programmers
>tool...yuck! Euphoria appears, spiritually to be an heir of early COBOL
more
>than anything like C. Of course, we no longer have the infamous "DATA
Everett
Just a reminder Euphoria is written in Watcom C\C++
Bernie
5. Re: Q about other languages...
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:48:07 -0400, Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:50:55 -0400, Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM> wrote:
>
>>Plus, C has had about a million things grafted onto it since it's
>inception.
>>And since most of these other languages view themselves as replacements or
>>heirs of C, that is what you get. Besides, having learned to read that
>awful
>>mess, you can then boast that you can program with a "real" programmers
>>tool...yuck! Euphoria appears, spiritually to be an heir of early COBOL
>more
>>than anything like C. Of course, we no longer have the infamous "DATA
>
>
>
>Everett
> Just a reminder Euphoria is written in Watcom C\C++
>Bernie
And what, pray tell else could it have been written in that was available,
portable, and mature enough to base another language on? No particular
language has everything and most don't need everything. C/C++ have
everything by default whether you want it or not. Watcom has been around for
a long time in this business(as have I) and were fairly important in the
move toward meta-compilers when that was a hot item. They had a whole family
of languages that they were said to be moving towards a common meta-format.
UCSD was another big player in that area with their family of languages with
PASCAL as the center item.
And whoever it was that said that Euphoria was ANYTHING like LISP, I hope
was pulling my leg for the opportunity to put in a bad pun. I took a course
in LISP 30 years ago...and beyond being interpretive in nature...it is
wildly different from Euphoria. From what I can tell(and I know the pies are
headed my direction on this one..I prefer banana cream), Euphoria is less an
interpreter than it is a "compile and go" or "incremental compiler". Some
of the concepts from LISP could certainly add to the power of Euphoria, but
that would take about ten pages, so I think I'll wait till somebody bites on
that idea before I expatiate.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
6. Re: Q about other languages...
Everett Williams wrote:
>And whoever it was that said that Euphoria was ANYTHING like LISP, I hope
>was pulling my leg for the opportunity to put in a bad pun. I took a course
>in LISP 30 years ago...and beyond being interpretive in nature...it is
>wildly different from Euphoria. From what I can tell(and I know the pies are
>headed my direction on this one..I prefer banana cream), Euphoria is less an
>interpreter than it is a "compile and go" or "incremental compiler". Some
>of the concepts from LISP could certainly add to the power of Euphoria, but
>that would take about ten pages, so I think I'll wait till somebody bites on
>that idea before I expatiate.
Well, I've studied a little bit of Lisp myself; I tend to think
of Euphoria's sequence manipulations as being the way that Lisp
*should have* handled lists. I admit my experience is limited,
but out of several other languages I've looked at, I've only
found one that has a central data structure/element/whatever
that is as flexible and powerful as Lisp's list construct:
Euphoria, via it's sequences. Unfortunately, the way Lisp handled
things (where you can alter the contents of A by altering the
contents of B) left a bad taste in my mouth....
Obviously though, Lisp also has the distinct
advantage/disadvantage (depending on your perspective) of
being a functional language, so I wouldn't say they share
much beyond their use of the list/sequence construct.
No pies, just an explanation of how I like to view it. 
Rod Jackson
P.S. -- I'll admit, I'm curious; what could possibly be
added to Euphoria from Lisp that would be beneficial, but
without forcing Euphoria into a functional paradigm? In
condensed form, please. 
