OpenEuphoria

1. The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Nov 05, 2004
• 567 views

> >At the very least, it seems to have
> > stopped the various flame wars that were going on...

> And people call me mad   It also gives a break to RDS - I'm anxious
> for v2.5 and Robert doesn't need to many problems just now.

That is extremely dissapointing to hear.
It's submissive attitudes like that, which allows RapidEuphoria to
continue with their deceptive tactics of 'waiting out the storm'.
That's dispicable, on both the part of Robert and on the part of people
who I would normally consider better than that.

It's not a wonder that Robert Craig never listens to his patrons. Why
should he? All he has to do, is keep quiet for a while, and you guys
give up. Pathetic.

You know, he never did respond to the include statement issue just as I
said, other than to basically say it's not going to be fixed.
You think that is acceptible?!?

And you are looking forward to giving him MORE money so you can further
enforce his behaviour of complete and utter disregard?
Shame on all of you!

It's no wonder I'm so hostile on here. I refuse to accept his behaviour,
and you guys are just as ignorant as he is.
You know the problems exist, yet you refuse to admit that they are
there.

I commend you Derek for your efforts with the contest, and general
community support. But of all people, you know the issues better than I
do, and set an example for most everyone in the euphoria community. You
should be more assertive of your opinions.

I'm sure you realize that your ignorance perpetuates the problems of
euphoria onto not only existing Euphoria users, but all prospective
users as well. You should also realize that silence is perceived as
satisfaction.

It's pretty hard to deny that significant issues exist with Euphoria,
and are NOT BEING ADDRESSED. You would rather sweep it under the rug,
and let Robert get away with it!

I will continue fighting tooth and nail, because I feel we are being
BETRAYED by Rapid Deployment Software.

I remember how many years I have spent learning euphoria, only to be
extremely dissapointed with RDS. The very least I can do with my
experience, is make sure others, especially new users, know of the
problems with euphoria.

For what reason does Robert Craig have, to improve Euporia, other than
to milk more money from us? He certainly doesn't have to address the
problems. The Euphoria community demonstrates extreme lethargy, and
furthermore even promotes Rob's behaviour!

How can you make him accountable, if you won't express your opinions?
How can you justify deceiving new and existing Euphoria users who are
legitamately unaware of Euphoria's issues, by being silent?
I consider that kind of silence to be anti-productive and even selfish.

I'm more dissapointed with the lack of activism within the community
than I am with Rob. Particularly knowledgable people like Phil, and
Derek, who certainly know of Euphoria's, and more specifically, RDS's
failings.

I am at the point, where I feel it would be better if Euphoria just
ceased development and withered quickly, instead of the slow and
tortuous lack of progress which is inevitably going to end in tragedy
anyways.

I refuse to give up, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of
others, and the fate of Euphoria.


Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy

3. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 05, 2004
• 546 views

Chris, it just isn't worth it to argue with RDS for improvements. They won't 
help with the items some of us have asked for for years. And right now, it's 
almost inconsequential to me.

I begged the sherrif's dept, the district attorney's office, the county animal 
control office, lawyers, strangers who are always around insisting i need their 
help, i begged for years to do something. And the neighbor knew i'd use a 
gun, but he let the attack dogs run lose on my place anyhow. So when one 
of the dogs attacked me one day, i shot it dead. Now all the male humans 
will be closing ranks over the dead male attack rott, and putting me in jail for
defending myself.

So some of us won't complain, so we won't get kicked off the list like Rett.

Kat

5. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Greg Haberek <ghaberek at gmail.com> Nov 05, 2004
• 551 views

On Fri,  5 Nov 2004 02:29:42 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> wrote:
> 
> > >At the very least, it seems to have
> > > stopped the various flame wars that were going on...
> 
> > And people call me mad   It also gives a break to RDS - I'm anxious
> > for v2.5 and Robert doesn't need to many problems just now.
> 
> That is extremely dissapointing to hear.
> It's submissive attitudes like that, which allows RapidEuphoria to
> continue with their deceptive tactics of 'waiting out the storm'.
> That's dispicable, on both the part of Robert and on the part of people
> who I would normally consider better than that.
> 
> It's not a wonder that Robert Craig never listens to his patrons. Why
> should he? All he has to do, is keep quiet for a while, and you guys
> give up. Pathetic.
> 
> You know, he never did respond to the include statement issue just as I
> said, other than to basically say it's not going to be fixed.
> You think that is acceptible?!?
> 
> And you are looking forward to giving him MORE money so you can further
> enforce his behaviour of complete and utter disregard?
> Shame on all of you!
> 
> It's no wonder I'm so hostile on here. I refuse to accept his behaviour,
> and you guys are just as ignorant as he is.
> You know the problems exist, yet you refuse to admit that they are
> there.
> 
> I commend you Derek for your efforts with the contest, and general
> community support. But of all people, you know the issues better than I
> do, and set an example for most everyone in the euphoria community. You
> should be more assertive of your opinions.
> 
> I'm sure you realize that your ignorance perpetuates the problems of
> euphoria onto not only existing Euphoria users, but all prospective
> users as well. You should also realize that silence is perceived as
> satisfaction.
> 
> It's pretty hard to deny that significant issues exist with Euphoria,
> and are NOT BEING ADDRESSED. You would rather sweep it under the rug,
> and let Robert get away with it!
> 
> I will continue fighting tooth and nail, because I feel we are being
> BETRAYED by Rapid Deployment Software.
> 
> I remember how many years I have spent learning euphoria, only to be
> extremely dissapointed with RDS. The very least I can do with my
> experience, is make sure others, especially new users, know of the
> problems with euphoria.
> 
> For what reason does Robert Craig have, to improve Euporia, other than
> to milk more money from us? He certainly doesn't have to address the
> problems. The Euphoria community demonstrates extreme lethargy, and
> furthermore even promotes Rob's behaviour!
> 
> How can you make him accountable, if you won't express your opinions?
> How can you justify deceiving new and existing Euphoria users who are
> legitamately unaware of Euphoria's issues, by being silent?
> I consider that kind of silence to be anti-productive and even selfish.
> 
> I'm more dissapointed with the lack of activism within the community
> than I am with Rob. Particularly knowledgable people like Phil, and
> Derek, who certainly know of Euphoria's, and more specifically, RDS's
> failings.
> 
> I am at the point, where I feel it would be better if Euphoria just
> ceased development and withered quickly, instead of the slow and
> tortuous lack of progress which is inevitably going to end in tragedy
> anyways.
> 
> I refuse to give up, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of
> others, and the fate of Euphoria.
> 
> Chris Bensler
> Code is Alchemy

Please excuse me for using weird analogies here. I'm a hobbyist
programmer as well as a hobbyist mechanic.

<analogy Civic=Euphoria Honda=RDS>
Let's say I need a car. My basic requirements are price and
reliability. So I go out and buy a Honda Civic. Its an average-priced
economy car that will get me from A to B without a fuss.

But after I've been using my Honda Civic, I decide its not fast
enough. And I want power windows. And a CD player. And a GOTO syntax
(oops, sorry, wrong car).

Now I have three choices: I can either (A) continue to use my Honda
Civic the way I bought it because there's nothing wrong with how it
works and it does what I need it to do, (B) modify my Honda Civic to
accomodate my needs, which is perfectly reasonable if I have the
proper knowledge, or (C) I go buy another car that suits my new needs.

I do not (D) call Honda and throw a fit beacuse *their* Civic doesn't
meet all my needs, or (E) complain to other Civic owners who are
perfectly happy with their Civics because I'm not happy with mine.

If I'm patient enough, I can (F) call Honda and request they make the
Civic a bit faster, and make power windows and a CD player standard,
but I have to remember that it IS THEIR CIVIC! They make it and if
they don't want to put in an option for any reason, that's their
choice.
</analogy>

Stick that in your tailpipe and smoke it.

~Greg
www.merkur.000k2.com

7. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 05, 2004
• 562 views
• Last edited Nov 06, 2004

Greg Haberek wrote:

[snip]

> Stick that in your tailpipe and smoke it.

If Honda did upgrade the Civic, would you be upset? Are any of the
suggested upgrades going to cause you problems?

If, after having upgraded it, more people started buying them. Would that
upset you? Especially as that would improve spare parts prices and 
availability, and there'd be more knowledgable mechanics around.

If Honda started putting seat belts and airbags in as standard 
(hey! its an analogy), would that upset you?

Is it wrong to consider how things might be rather than how things are?

Is it wrong to think that Civic is not yet perfect? And thus to ask
for improvements?

Who is in the better position to improve the Civic? Honda or me? 

Some of us regard "status quo" as an opportunity for improvement rather
than a "life sentence".

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

9. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> Nov 05, 2004
• 556 views
• Last edited Nov 06, 2004

Andy Serpa wrote:
> 
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> > 
> > Greg Haberek wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > Stick that in your tailpipe and smoke it.
> > 
> > If Honda did upgrade the Civic, would you be upset? Are any of the
> > suggested upgrades going to cause you problems?
> > 
> > If, after having upgraded it, more people started buying them. Would that
> > upset you? Especially as that would improve spare parts prices and 
> > availability, and there'd be more knowledgable mechanics around.
> > 
> > If Honda started putting seat belts and airbags in as standard 
> > (hey! its an analogy), would that upset you?
> > 
> > Is it wrong to consider how things might be rather than how things are?
> > 
> > Is it wrong to think that Civic is not yet perfect? And thus to ask
> > for improvements?
> > 
> > Who is in the better position to improve the Civic? Honda or me? 
> > 
> > Some of us regard "status quo" as an opportunity for improvement rather
> > than a "life sentence".
> > 
> 
> All true, but the insinuation seems to be that because the Civic could be
> better, we
> shouldn't like the current Civic -- that the current Civic should make us
> angry.  The
> way I feel is that it could be better, but what it is now is good.  If it
> never changes
> again, it will still be good.  Good is good.
> 
The Google banner is serving ads for the Honda Civic -- I love it.

11. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Nov 06, 2004
• 534 views

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:39:58 +1100, David Jarvis <davidj at ultrasmart.org>
wrote:
> **From one viewpoint**
> My only interest in Eu's fate is whether the investment in time I
> have taken to learn and use it, and the fee I paid for the Private Ed
> of the interpreter v 2.4 will be "lost" if it "dies" tomorrow.

That is correct - we are not dependent from Rob, the 2.4 euphoria
package doesn't require 'activation', or anything similarly repugnant.


> If Eu died tomorrow - it would owe me nothing. And I would probably
> continue to use if for a number of years.
> I suspect many others also find Eu *currently* a very useful tool
> which is very good value (in terms of fee, ease of use, power). So I
> suspect it will keep going for a while yet.

Yes, that also is true. I suspect that Rob is happy with the number of
users Euphoria has at the moment, and has no particular desire to make
it expand. Then again, I may be wrong - but no matter.

I suppose the question appears - why *aren't* there more people who
use Euphoria, considering it's been around longer than PHP...?
There's not a simple answer, and I think the perceived weaknesses of
Euphoria aren't going to deter new users - they won't even be aware of
those weaknesses until they've used it for a longer period of time.

> **Could it be better?**
> For whom? Making it better for you may mean it is no longer as useful
> to me (eg harder for me to learn because of the extra feature you
> wanted).

There are two ways to write a language. 
The way that Euphoria seems to be taking is the first - for each
function of the language, there are 1 or 2 ways to accomplish that
task. An approach I think is *largely* sensible.

However, those few choices may not be ideal for the task - one example
- multiple subscripts of a sequence:

--( e = {5,10} )
my_sequence[e[1]][e[2]] --finds the element at my_sequence[5][10]

Okay, fair enough. It would be easier for some tasks though, to be
able to do this:

--( e = {5,10} )
my_sequence[ e ] --finds the element at my_sequence[5][10]

So, you have a dilemma. One the one hand, it's easier to write, it may
well be faster, and it allows custom levels of subscripting. On the
other, it's not as easy to understand.

The second approach to take is like that of Perl. There are many many
many ways to accomplish a task. The downside is that it can be very
difficult to understand. If you implement too many ways of doing
something, the syntax becomes unclear, as anyone who's seen Perl Golf
can tell you.

A balance needs to be struck, which *may* (although I wish he'd
out-and-say-it) be a cause of Rob's hesitance in implementing anything
new. If unchecked, 'improvements' could quickly cause the language to
become unclear.

> In contrast to what a number of members seem to be implying, RDS
> probably have quite a lot at stake in making Eu "better".

Here, I disagree.
Rob's job is selling Euphoria, and a few other things, like
ListFilter. (As far as I know, Rob feel free to correct me)

All Euphorians *use* Euphoria, some of us for our job. If Euphoria
needs a small enhancement for it be useful for a particular task, that
user has a large stake in that enhancement being implemented. As was
mentioned, variable_id() could make a large difference in the
suitability of Euphoria - a GOOD difference.

Rob on the other hand, sells Euphoria. Once a person has used Euphoria
a little, they'll usually want to get a registered version so that
they can continue making more complex projects. Once they've paid, Rob
doesn't have to listen to them. If there's a request for an
enhancement, there's no real benefit to Rob implementing it in an
upcoming version - that user will probably get the new one anyway -
either because by buying the previous version, they're entitled to it,
or they'll upgrade anyway, just to get the bug fixes. I dare say he
has no incentive to even think about whether a new feature should be
added to the language - unless it's a simple thing, and doesn't take
much effort, and benefits him, what's the point? He'll be paid anyway.

 
> Many of the posts I have read seem to be from people who work in or
> understand the software industry and who *care* about Eu and it's
> future. They seem to be from people who can see that Eu has a great
> future and may miss out on it because of lack of certain features, or
> lack of pace in its evolution.

Indeed. One thing is, you never have trouble finding information about
C or C++. It's gone past a critical mass point, where there are so
many people using the language that there is an incentive for new
users to learn the language, and increase the number of people using
the language. So, the mere fact that lots of people use the language
helps, because if you have a problem there are many sources of
information to solve that problem.
Euphoria is nowhere near this point. However, it's still a good idea
to attract more people - I'm glad I never have to figure out the
windows API myself, and I don't have to, because fellow Euphorians
have already done it. Numbers are important.

 
> I'm not sure why they *care* about Eu - perhaps they have put in much
> more to the development of Eu than I have - eg via contributed code
> into the archive. However, I suspect RDS may do well listening to
> these people.
See above. And yes, I think RDS would be better off if he listened to
us. Who knows, perhaps ListFilter deletes all these messages before
they even reach his pristine ears?

-- 
MrTrick

13. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 06, 2004
• 525 views

Chris Bensler wrote:

> Greg Haberek wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Some of us regard "status quo" as an opportunity for improvement rather
>>> than a "life sentence".
>>
>> I'm sure Rob has a huge list of improvements written down somewhere.
>
> So he says. Why wont he show us? He would prefer that we sit here a
> bitch about the same things over and over like broken records?

Rob wrote that he perhaps *will* show us (see my other recent post in
the thread "Old request list"). To be fair, we all can ask ourselves why
we didn't even write a reply concerning the "Old request list" up to now.
(I know there were replies in that thread, but they were concerning
technical stuff such as CGI.)

<big snip>

Regards,
   Juergen

15. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 06, 2004
• 544 views

Greg Haberek wrote:

> ~Greg
> www.merkur.000k2.com  <-- written in 98% Euphoria

I tried that web site but got nuttin' but broken images and an
"internal server error."

-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/

17. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 06, 2004
• 549 views
• Last edited Nov 07, 2004

Chris Bensler wrote:

> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> Chris Bensler wrote:
>>
>>> Greg Haberek wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Some of us regard "status quo" as an opportunity for improvement rather
>>>>> than a "life sentence".
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure Rob has a huge list of improvements written down somewhere.
>>>
>>> So he says. Why wont he show us? He would prefer that we sit here a
>>> bitch about the same things over and over like broken records?
>>
>> Rob wrote that he perhaps *will* show us (see my other recent post in
>> the thread "Old request list"). To be fair, we all can ask ourselves why
>> we didn't even write a reply concerning the "Old request list" up to
>> now.
>> (I know there were replies in that thread, but they were concerning
>> technical stuff such as CGI.)
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Juergen
>>
>
> Notice Juergen, that he said MAYBE.

Yes, I'm aware of this.

> It should not be a consideration at all.
> And people have been asking him for such a thing for half a decade, and
> it still a MAYBE.

And what do you think will increase the probability, that Rob now will
realize the plan? Ignoring his announcement, or rather expressing that
one is looking forward to it?

Regards,
   Juergen

19. The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by richard koch <dr.richard.koch at t-online.de> Nov 07, 2004
• 561 views

I think that one of real things that are missing are threads. i asked a couple
of
times for it, - but somehow it doesn't seem to be usefull for others.
eu is nice for little,little,little proggies (lacking threads), but for the
things
i need to do i have to use D or modula (sure there are other possibilities - i 
circumvent M$ and can port without change to linux).
i can very well understand the problems people have and i hope there will be
changes, since i like the concepts of this little language.

best regards

richard koch

21. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by richard koch <dr.richard.koch at t-online.de> Nov 07, 2004
• 535 views

yap, sounds ok.

so you did that a long time ago - i did too.
no real servers, printing (user friendly) ....

oh boy, i know that this is hard for an interpreter - but you guys should 
think about the fundamental things instead of doing the little things that 
are convienent for 2 liners.

i do not know what robert's plans are - yours should be an all purpose 
language with future and utility.

best regards

richard

23. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Jonas Temple <jtemple at yhti.net> Nov 07, 2004
• 534 views

richard koch wrote:
> 
> I think that one of real things that are missing are threads. i asked a couple
> of
> times for it, - but somehow it doesn't seem to be usefull for others.
> eu is nice for little,little,little proggies (lacking threads), but for the
> things
> 
> richard koch
> 
Richard,

I too have asked for this no less than 3 times.  I have programs that 
would definitely be better if I had threads in Eu.

Jonas

Jonas Temple
http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple

25. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Unkmar" <L3Euphoria at bellsouth.net> Nov 07, 2004
• 532 views

Chris Bensler said:

> Once they've paid, Rob doesn't have to listen to them. If there's a
> request for an enhancement, there's no real benefit to Rob
> implementing it in an upcoming version - that user will probably get
> the new one anyway - either because by buying the previous version,
> they're entitled to it, or they'll upgrade anyway, just to get the bug fixes.

I bought 1.4 years ago, I got my upgrade.
I bought 2.2 some time back, I got that upgrade to 2.3.

I don't have and am not entitled to 2.4 so I am also not entitled to 2.5.
I will not buy 2.4.  Why would I buy 2.5.  I won't buy either.
Not because I'm happy with what I have.  But because I'm not happy
enough with the new changes.  I don't like the installer.  I'm not going
to pay for something I don't like.

SO, if you are to get any more of MY money changes will have to be
made to entice me to buy it.  BUG FIXES to problems in my current
version are not enough for me to BUY it.

ALSO, if the entire community manages to move ahead without me
to new versions and began using features that I don't have in my version
I will simply abandon Euphoria.  I simply will not relent to the ongoing
pile of crap that Euphoria has become.  And believe me, as small of a
devoted following as you have, There is still an underground. I could get
2.4 full featured if I wanted it.  I don't want the installer. 
Besides, I'm
devoted to paying the small amount that is asked of euphoria they say
you get what you pay for.  I paid very little.  Hmm, I got very little.
This is no joke, I really prefer 2.3 over 2.4.  I will also prefer 2.3 
over
2.5.  Your include slash bug fix is one of the reasons I will likely 
abandon
Euphoria.  Again, I say abandon Euphoira.  As in use of Euphoria, as in
I will not be leaving the community. I have decided to side with Bensler
in my fight FOR what euphoria can be and not abandon it after having
spent many years learning what it can do and then learning its 
limitations.

     unkmar

27. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by richard koch <dr.richard.koch at t-online.de> Nov 07, 2004
• 509 views
• Last edited Nov 08, 2004

i will stick wih the language if rob will instrument it -  
to make it usable for real projects.

for the people who are thinking about changes, here are some to look at:

http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
http://floppsie.comp.glam.ac.uk/Glamorgan/gaius/web/GNUModula2.html
http://www.rebol.com/
http://home.perm.ru/~strannik/#engl
http://libre.act-europe.fr/GNAT/
http://www.gwydiondylan.org/index.phtml
http://www.pyxia.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.purebasic.com/index.php3
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://smarteiffel.loria.fr/
http://www.cs.kun.nl/~clean/About_Clean/Clean_Language_Features/clean_language_features.html

there were many good arguments, but the one that really got me was, that even so
source
code changes where offered - none was taken (i hope i got that correctly).

but back to business, there is a contest, hashes - whow.

best regards

richard

29. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 527 views

On 6 Nov 2004, at 17:46, richard koch wrote:

> 
> 
> posted by: richard koch <dr.richard.koch at t-online.de>
> 
> yap, sounds ok.

What does?

> so you did that a long time ago - i did too.
> no real servers, printing (user friendly) ....

Did what?
 
> oh boy, i know that this is hard for an interpreter - but you guys should 
> think about the fundamental things instead of doing the little things that are
> convienent for 2 liners.
> 
> i do not know what robert's plans are - yours should be an all purpose 
> language with future and utility.

Oh, i hoped Euphoria would be that.

Kat

31. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 542 views

On 6 Nov 2004, at 1:12, Greg Haberek wrote:

<snip>

> I'm sure Rob has a huge list of improvements written down somewhere.
> I'm sure he'd love to give us everything we want. But maybe instead of
> looking at this from a user/programmer point of view, maybe we should
> look at it from his point of view, as an owner of a business: Its bad
> marketing to put out all your upgrades at one. "Don't put all your
> eggs in one basket" so to speak. Why would he couple every single
> upgrade into version 2.5 or 2.6? What would 2.7 and 2.8 hold for us?
> Let's look at the longevity of the language, or the "Fate of
> Euphoria." If we keep proposing upgrades, there *will* be a fate for
> Euphoria, since Rob will always have a list to choose from when
> implementing new features. What happens if he puts in everything right
> away? He won't make money and we won't have new versions. No one will
> be happy with Euphoria and the language will die. Rob won't make
> money, he'll go poor, starve and die. DO WE WANT ROB TO DIE BECAUSE WE
> WERE TOO SELFISH AND WANTED ALL OUR UPGRADES AT ONCE?

And if he does NOT make changes, the language will always be a primitive 
LISP wannabe, without even a basic goto or case statement, and Rob won't 
make money and we won't have new versions. No one will be happy with 
Euphoria and the language will die. Rob won't make money, he'll go poor, 
starve and die. DO WE WANT ROB TO DIE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET 
OUR UPGRADES !

Kat

33. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by codepilot Gmail Account <codepilot at gmail.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 548 views

I no professional programmer, and I've only been using euphoria for
like 4 years, so I asked a few people (professional programmers) what
goto is(was) for. They said it's good for source code protection, ie.
by putting in a bunch of GOTOs it is nearly impossible to see what the
real code does.
So is that why you want GOTO, to make euphoria unreadable?

Daniel
PS CASE is very good, better than a bunch of elsifs.


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:11:08 -0800, Ferlin Scarborough
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> 
> posted by: Ferlin Scarborough <ferlin1 at bellsouth.net>
> 
> >And if he does NOT make changes, the language will always be a primitive
> >LISP wannabe, without even a basic goto or case statement, and Rob won't
> 
> The CASE statement I can agree with, but I simply CAN NOT stand a program
> that uses a GOTO statement, that is just utterly uncalled for, there is no
> need for such a monster that only tends to make you have to jump all over
> the place, and eventually forget which goto started it all.
> 
> Although, Rob is welcome to implement a GOTO, but I simply will not ever
> use it if it is there.
> 
> But, now the CASE statement, that's another deal altogether. 
> 
> Later.
> 
> Ferlin Scarborough
> 
> Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
> http://www.gameuniv.net
> 
> My Euphoria Home Page
> http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

35. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 546 views

On 8 Nov 2004, at 3:51, codepilot Gmail Account wrote:

> 
> I no professional programmer, 

Really?

> and I've only been using euphoria for
> like 4 years, so I asked a few people (professional programmers) what
> goto is(was) for. They said it's good for source code protection, ie.
> by putting in a bunch of GOTOs it is nearly impossible to see what the
> real code does.

That's their problem, not mine. I was paid for code too, once upon a time. 
And i used goto. In fact, i added assy code to evaluate variables so i could 
goto them too.

> So is that why you want GOTO, to make euphoria unreadable?

Yeas, of course. You humans always believe the downside. You can't figure 
maybe i can use it to do the appropriate task, so you wish to save me from 
your problems, sheesh. Email is used for spam, it should all be illegal. The 
phone is used by salespeople to interrupt dinner. Television broadcasts porn, 
tv should be illegal too. Ditto the internet.
 
> Daniel
> PS CASE is very good, better than a bunch of elsifs.

It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture the
little
goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end, where
the goto points to the end of the stack.

Kat
 
 
<snip>

37. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Mike Nelson" <MichaelANelson at worldnet.att.net> Nov 08, 2004
• 537 views

> > PS CASE is very good, better than a bunch of elsifs.
>
> It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture
the little
> goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end,
where
> the goto points to the end of the stack.


On the assembly language level, yes it is. That is of no concern to the
programmer, however. This code

if x then
    do_1()
elsif y then
    do_2()
else
    do_3()
end if

or the equivalent case statements simply do not have the same power or
potential for abuse as goto:


if x then
    goto skip
end if
--- 50 other statements

: skip
-- 100 other statements


If you prefer, elsif is a constrained goto, while goto itself is
unconstrained, hence more powerful and more dangerous.

By the way, I program professionally in VB6 which leaves me no choice but to
use goto for error handlers. And I also use it occasionally when not
strictly required, as I find it convenient in some cases (Always error or
special case handling, 99% of the time in place of the non-available
continue.)

I never really miss it in Eu. I would use continue if it were
available--continue is a constrained goto.

-- Mike Nelson

39. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Ferlin Scarborough <ferlin1 at bellsouth.net> Nov 08, 2004
• 536 views

Mike Nelson wrote:
> 
> 
> > It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture
> the little
> > goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end,
> where
> > the goto points to the end of the stack.
> 

I tend to somewhat disagree with this, CASE is a glorified If...ElseIf
statement.
You are not really going anywhere, you are saying in the CASE where this is
equal to this, then do this code.  Not goto this other place.  Your program
does not head off in some other direction it still falls through the CASE
statement to the following statement(s).

> 
> On the assembly language level, yes it is. That is of no concern to the
> programmer, however. This code
> 
> if x then
>     do_1()
> elsif y then
>     do_2()
> else
>     do_3()
> end if
> 
> or the equivalent case statements simply do not have the same power or
> potential for abuse as goto:
> 
> 
> if x then
>     goto skip
> end if
> --- 50 other statements
> 
> : skip
> -- 100 other statements
>
<snip> 
> -- Mike Nelson

My biggest beef with the goto statement is that it is usally highly abused,
sometimes to the point where the program is literally unreadable, by the
time you figure out where all those jumps are going to, you could have totally
rewritten an application just like it.

We really don't want to start the goto wars of 4 or 5 years ago on here,
it tended to get pretty nasty, and ending up with each side pretty much
saying, this is my opionion and I'm sticking to it, as stuborn as I am.

Euphoria has lastest this long without the need for a goto, and it will
survive even longer with or without it.  Right now without it, the programs
are much cleaner.

That's my .02 on it.

Later.

Ferlin Scarborough

Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
http://www.gameuniv.net

My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft

41. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 523 views
• Last edited Nov 09, 2004

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:15:04 -0600, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture the
> little
> goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end,
> where
> the goto points to the end of the stack.

I know that all program flow statements resolve to "jmp" or similar
when converted down to assembly language, but luckily we don't have to
think in assembly constructs all the time... I'm very happy Rob hasn't
said "No if-statements"!

If I may ask, Kat, what can be done with goto that can't be done with
the higher-level constructs? There are some high-level constructs
missing from Euphoria at the moment, so assuming that you have:
if/elsif/else switch/case/exit  while/for exit/next exit(N)/next(N)
available, can you give me an example of something that can't be done
using them, that needs a goto?

Please note, this is not an attack of any kind, I would like to see if
it has uses. In my job I make changes to existing C/C++ code, and
rarely do I see a goto. Perhaps the world would not end if Rob added
goto to the language, no programmer with enough skill to write
libraries that others would find useful would be silly enough to use
them in a way that should be done with a simple higher-level
construct.

-- 
MrTrick

43. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by CoJaBo <cojabo at suscom.net> Nov 08, 2004
• 515 views
• Last edited Nov 09, 2004

Kat wrote:
> 
> On 8 Nov 2004, at 3:51, codepilot Gmail Account wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I no professional programmer, 
> 
> Really?
> 
> > and I've only been using euphoria for
> > like 4 years, so I asked a few people (professional programmers) what
> > goto is(was) for. They said it's good for source code protection, ie.
> > by putting in a bunch of GOTOs it is nearly impossible to see what the
> > real code does.
I would not want to try to decifer code that uses goto.

> 
> That's their problem, not mine. I was paid for code too, once upon a time. 
> And i used goto. In fact, i added assy code to evaluate variables so i could 
> goto them too.
> 
> > So is that why you want GOTO, to make euphoria unreadable?
> 
> Yeas, of course. You humans always believe the downside. You can't figure 
> maybe i can use it to do the appropriate task, so you wish to save me from 
> your problems, sheesh. Email is used for spam, it should all be illegal. The 
> phone is used by salespeople to interrupt dinner. Television broadcasts pie, 
> tv should be illegal too. Ditto the internet.
>  
> > Daniel
> > PS CASE is very good, better than a bunch of elsifs.
> 
> It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture the
> little
> 
> goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end,
> where
> the goto points to the end of the stack.
Those are "higher level" forms of the primitive GOTO.
I have never needed goto, and I think you are the only one,
unfortuainatly.

> 
> Kat
>  
>  
> <snip>
> 
>

45. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com> Nov 08, 2004
• 532 views
• Last edited Nov 09, 2004

Patrick Barnes wrote:
> 
> if/elsif/else switch/case/exit  while/for exit/next exit(N)/next(N)
> available, can you give me an example of something that can't be done
> using them, that needs a goto?

Patrick:
   Where did you find "  next(N)  " instruction ?

Bernie

My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew

Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan

47. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by CoJaBo <cojabo at suscom.net> Nov 08, 2004
• 521 views
• Last edited Nov 09, 2004

CoJaBoisstuped wrote:
> 
> CoJaBoisstuped wrote:
> > 
> > Kat wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 8 Nov 2004, at 3:51, codepilot Gmail Account wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I no professional programmer, 
> > > 
> > > Really?
> > > 
> > > > and I've only been using euphoria for
> > > > like 4 years, so I asked a few people (professional programmers) what
> > > > goto is(was) for. They said it's good for source code protection, ie.
> > > > by putting in a bunch of GOTOs it is nearly impossible to see what the
> > > > real code does.
> > I would not want to try to decifer code that uses goto.
> > 
> > > 
> > > That's their problem, not mine. I was paid for code too, once upon a time.
> > >
> > > And i used goto. In fact, i added assy code to evaluate variables so i
> > > could
> > > goto them too.
> > > 
> > > > So is that why you want GOTO, to make euphoria unreadable?
> > > 
> > > Yeas, of course. You humans always believe the downside. You can't figure 
> > > maybe i can use it to do the appropriate task, so you wish to save me from
> > >
> > > your problems, sheesh. Email is used for spam, it should all be illegal.
> > > The
> > > phone is used by salespeople to interrupt dinner. Television broadcasts
> > > pickle,
> Strange, I don't remember the word "pickle" being used... Why was "pickle"
> changed to "pickle"?
Ok, now I know someone is playing a trick on me..
p-i-e is being changed to p-i-c-k-l-e
and I forget what was being changed to p-i-e...
Does anyone else have the same problem?
It isn't easy to understand posts if words are
getting changed...

> 
> > > tv should be illegal too. Ditto the al gore.
> > >  
> > > > Daniel
> > > > PS CASE is very good, better than a bunch of elsifs.
> > > 
> > > It's another goto in disguise. So is the elsif, for that matter. Picture
> > > the little
> > > 
> > > goto at the end of each elsif that executes in that stack of if-elsif-end,
> > > where
> > > the goto points to the end of the stack.
> > Those are "higher level" forms of the primitive GOTO.
> > I have never needed goto, and I think you are the only one,
> > infortunado.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Kat
> > >  
> > >  
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > >

49. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 09, 2004
• 523 views

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:57:59 -0800, CoJaBo <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
wrote:

>> Strange, I don't remember the word "pickle" being used... Why was "pickle"
>> changed to "pickle"?
>Ok, now I know someone is playing a trick on me..
>p-i-e is being changed to p-i-c-k-l-e
>and I forget what was being changed to p-i-e...
>Does anyone else have the same problem?
>It isn't easy to understand posts if words are
>getting changed...

In:
>> > > Television broadcasts pickle, 
>> > > tv should be illegal too.
Kat originally wrote p-o-r-n, looks like some kind of parental filter
at work, or one of those trojan things you picked up.

Regards,
Pete

51. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 545 views

On 8 Nov 2004, at 20:18, Juergen Luethje wrote:

> 
> 
> Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > My biggest beef with the goto statement is that it is usally highly abused,
> > sometimes to the point where the program is literally unreadable, by the
> > time
> > you figure out where all those jumps are going to, you could have totally
> > rewritten an application just like it.
>
> I agree.

Then you both are misusing it.
 
> > We really don't want to start the goto wars of 4 or 5 years ago on here,
> > it tended to get pretty nasty, and ending up with each side pretty much
> > saying, this is my opionion and I'm sticking to it, as stuborn as I am.
> 
> I agree. However, people who enjoy crying "goto,goto" in public at least
> 3 times a month, should not be surprised, when they'll get some replies.

I am not surprised to get a reply, but i have been coding in higher level 
languages since 1979, and various assy before and after. I still wish to have 
a goto at my disposal.

Kat

53. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 569 views

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:35:50 -0600, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> > I tend to somewhat disagree with this, CASE is a glorified If...ElseIf
> > statement. You are not really going anywhere, you are saying in the CASE
> > where
> > this is equal to this, then do this code.  Not goto this other place.
> 
> Yes it does. After hitting the first valid case line, it goto's the endcase
> line.
> Same with the elsif, once a line (or block) is executed, no more of the
> if..elsif..end is tested, it does a goto the end if.

Kat: In C/C++ and Java, case does this:

char all_ones(int exp)
{
   int result = 0;
  switch (a)
  {
     case 8: result += 128;
     case 7: result += 64
     case 6: result += 32;
     case 5: result += 16;
     case 4: result += 8;
     case 3: result += 4;
     case 2: result += 2;
     case 1: result += 1;
                 break;
     default; //Do nothing, result is zero
  }
  return result;
}

This function returns an 8-bit number that is all ones. (Yes, I know
it could be done with "return power(2,exp+1)-1", this is just an
example.)

It doesn't exit out of the switch statement until you call break. If
switch was implemented in Euphoria, I think it would have to do things
this way, as C/C++ and Java both do things like this, and most
programmers use one of the three languages.
     
-- 
MrTrick

55. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 528 views

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:50:18 -0600, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> A goto by any other name, but mine must spec unequivically and exactly
> where it goes to, your continue and next will need to be altered if you add
> significant code. You want a continue, break, next, exit, resume, hop, skip,
> blah, blah, blah, but no goto??!!?? Goto can replace ALL those!

That's why I suggested using labelled loops...

Kat, I'm not campaigning for continued exclusion of the goto
statement... I'm rather ambivalent about whether or not it's in the
language.

However, goto statements are considered 'inelegant' compared to
high-level program flow statements, even though when you get down to
it, they're all "jmp" in assembly code.

Currently with Euphoria as it is (lacking some high-level program flow
statements), there would be coding advantages to having a goto
statement...

However, what my question was (and still wasn't answered):
Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
a full set of high-level program flow statements?
-- 
MrTrick

57. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 535 views

On 9 Nov 2004, at 17:01, Patrick Barnes wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:50:18 -0600, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> > A goto by any other name, but mine must spec unequivically and exactly
> > where it goes to, your continue and next will need to be altered if you add
> > significant code. You want a continue, break, next, exit, resume, hop, skip,
> > blah, blah, blah, but no goto??!!?? Goto can replace ALL those!
> 
> That's why I suggested using labelled loops...
> 
> Kat, I'm not campaigning for continued exclusion of the goto
> statement... I'm rather ambivalent about whether or not it's in the
> language.
> 
> However, goto statements are considered 'inelegant' compared to
> high-level program flow statements, even though when you get down to
> it, they're all "jmp" in assembly code.
> 
> Currently with Euphoria as it is (lacking some high-level program flow
> statements), there would be coding advantages to having a goto
> statement...
> 
> However, what my question was (and still wasn't answered):
> Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
> a full set of high-level program flow statements?

I am exhausted at the moment, and probably for another week, can't you 
search the email records for it? Derek and me and others have submitted 
good goto code for your amusement and demo.

Kat

59. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> Nov 09, 2004
• 521 views

Patrick Barnes wrote:
> It doesn't exit out of the switch statement until you call break. If
> switch was implemented in Euphoria, I think it would have to do things
> this way, as C/C++ and Java both do things like this, and most
> programmers use one of the three languages.

I don't think that's a good idea. C# (newer than Java) gives a compile-time
error when trying to use a 'case'-statement without a 'break'. Fall-through
isn't supported BECAUSE it caused too many errors.

You can do this:

switch(x)
{
   case 1:
   case 2:
   case 3:
      Console.WriteLine("1, 2 or 3");
      break;
   case 4:
   case 5:
      Console.WriteLine("4 or 5");
      break;
}

But if you leave out the 'break', you won't be able to compile.
Fall-through causes errors, when you forget to 'break' at the right
place.

--
Recycle your pets.
tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier
tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com

61. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 548 views
• Last edited Nov 10, 2004

On 9 Nov 2004, at 0:05, Derek Parnell wrote:

> 
> 
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> 
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> > 
> > Patrick Barnes wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
> > > a full set of high-level program flow statements?
> > 
> > No, there isn't. Scientists have proved that.
> 
> Yes, there is. Execute faster.
> 
> My position is this...
> 
> A programming language is a tool to help people write and read programs.
> GOTO is useful for some people.
> No one is forcing people to use GOTO if it is present in a language (except
> assembler maybe). I would never use GOTO in any of my Euphoria programs. I
> would
> never deny other people the use of GOTO in a Euphoria program. Even though I
> would find it hard to trust such a program and I would give it a poor 'style'
> score 
> 
> It sort like the 'free speech' position: I would defend a person's right
> to expression even if I disagreed with that person's expression.
> 
> I believe that GOTO always leads to programs which are expensive to
> maintain. However, if that cost is acceptable, then the use of GOTO is
> fine.

It's not that anyone in their right mind would write code with 100's of goto in 
it, but they might find it expedient to use one or two somewhere.

Kat

63. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 09, 2004
• 545 views
• Last edited Nov 10, 2004

Kat wrote:
> 
> On 9 Nov 2004, at 7:38, Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Patrick Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > However, what my question was (and still wasn't answered):
> > 
> > I answered it one or two years ago. 
> > 
> > > Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
> > > a full set of high-level program flow statements?
> > 
> > No, there isn't. Scientists have proved that.
> 
> Lets see them prove this one:
> 
> goto string
> 
> and string can be 200,000 possibilities, and you don't know what they are. 
> That's a 2-word code line, it works fine, and i can't do it in Eu without tons
> of
> supporting "high level" code.

Ummmm...actually you can do this sort of thing in Euphoria....

  call_proc(routine_id(string))

Instead of 'labels' you use procedures. 

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

65. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 09, 2004
• 534 views
• Last edited Nov 10, 2004

Derek Parnell wrote:

> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
>>> a full set of high-level program flow statements?
>>
>> No, there isn't. Scientists have proved that.
>
> Yes, there is. Execute faster.

Sometimes faster, and sometimes slower:
   http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ccgoto.htm

So this is not a convincing argument.

> My position is this...
>
> A programming language is a tool to help people write and read programs.
> GOTO is useful for some people.
> No one is forcing people to use GOTO if it is present in a language (except
> assembler maybe).

This might be true, or it might not be true.
Thanks that you wrote above: "... and read". So "use" can be writing or
reading.

True is:
No one is forcing people to *write* GOTO if it is present in a language.
What about:
No one is forcing people to *read* GOTO if it is present in a language??

The always repeated argument: "No one is forcing people to use GOTO."
(meaning "No one is forcing people to *write* GOTO.") only takes one
side of the coin into account.

As a layman and autodidact, much that I know about programming comes
from reading source code by other people. I'm not actually "forced" to
read source code by other people, but it is very, very useful for me.
For instance (certainly not only) I am curious about all the programs
that participate in the current programming contest.

I can read and understand code without GOTO much easier, faster, and
more reliable, so why in heaven should I be interested in something,
that greatly increases the probability that code that I want to read is
less readable? I'm not a masochist.

> I would never use GOTO in any of my Euphoria programs.
> I would never deny other people the use of GOTO in a Euphoria program. Even
> though I would find it hard to trust such a program

Me too. And why should there be any reason to encourage writing of
programs that are not trustworthy??

> and I would give it a poor 'style' score 
>
> It sort like the 'free speech' position: I would defend a person's right
> to expression even if I disagreed with that person's expression.

Derek, there are already dozens of languages with a GOTO statement.
There is no need that *every* language should have a GOTO statement, is
it? Diversity in this context means IMHO, that besides all those
languages which contain GOTO, there are also languages that don't
contain it.

> I believe that GOTO always leads to programs which are expensive to
> maintain. However, if that cost is acceptable, then the use of GOTO is
> fine.

The one who writes a program with GOTO, and the one who has to maintain
it, might be different persons. The maintaining person probably was not
asked beforehand, whether s/he considers the cost acceptable.

Also, Euphoria is the most elegant programming language that I've ever
seen. GOTO in Euphoria would look like bird droppings on the face of
Mona Lisa. 

Regards,
   Juergen

67. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by richard koch <dr.richard.koch at t-online.de> Nov 09, 2004
• 504 views
• Last edited Nov 10, 2004

may be the warts are a wasteful discussion. 
the quality of a language are not the goto's but its usability . 
When is a language usable?

1.) if it satisfies the requirements of the programming community
   (the user)
2.) if its constructs allow for a modern understood paradigm
3.) if it's users can program all the necessities that they required 
    in a portioned 
4.) if it is continually maintained so it will insure continuity that 
    it will not fade off
5.)  if it is extensible
6.) If it is maintained in a way that the users can make it more usable – 
    no restrictions
9999) the maintainer is fast adaptable and insures that after valid 
      arguments the language is (slowly??) adapted – backwards

best regards

richard

69. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 10, 2004
• 518 views

Derek Parnell wrote:

> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>
>>> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
>>>>> a full set of high-level program flow statements?
>>>>
>>>> No, there isn't. Scientists have proved that.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is. Execute faster.
>>
>> Sometimes faster, and sometimes slower:
>>    http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ccgoto.htm
>>
>> So this is not a convincing argument.
>
>
> Juergen, I tend to choose my words carefully in a public forum, where it
> is difficult to 'discuss' points. I want to be both brief and precise.
>
> The question was "Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that
> can't be done with a full set of high-level program flow statements?"
>
> And my answer was " Yes, there is. Execute faster."
>
> What I meant was, there are situations in which a GOTO can produce faster
> running code that any other contruct. Steve McConnell also lists this
> as a quote of Knuth (1974).  This is a true statement. Thus there is
> something that a GOTO can achieve that high-level program flow
> statements can not.

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry.

> And true, it is also possible that in *other* situations, a GOTO can
> produce slower code. But that was not the question.
>
>>> My position is this...
>>>
>>> A programming language is a tool to help people write and read programs.
>>> GOTO is useful for some people.
>>> No one is forcing people to use GOTO if it is present in a language (except
>>> assembler maybe).
>>
>> This might be true, or it might not be true.
>> Thanks that you wrote above: "... and read". So "use" can be writing or
>> reading.
>
> Yes, **WRITING** and **READING**. We must consider both aspects.
>
>> True is:
>> No one is forcing people to *write* GOTO if it is present in a language.
>> What about:
>> No one is forcing people to *read* GOTO if it is present in a language??
>
> This is also true. If Kat writes a program with GOTO in it, I am not
> forced to read that code.
>
>> The always repeated argument: "No one is forcing people to use GOTO."
>> (meaning "No one is forcing people to *write* GOTO.") only takes one
>> side of the coin into account.
>
> You, and not myself, have interpreted my word "use" as "write". I did not
> mean "write", I meant "use". Both reading and writing. I choose my words
> carefully. Do not place words into my mouth. If I have been unclear or
> ambiguous, please ask for clarification.

I'm sorry. It was not my intention to place words into my mouth.

>> As a layman and autodidact, much that I know about programming comes
>> from reading source code by other people. I'm not actually "forced" to
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> read source code by other people, but it is very, very useful for me.
>> For instance (certainly not only) I am curious about all the programs
>> that participate in the current programming contest.
>
> No one is *forcing* you to read GOTO containing programs. You can choose
> not to read them.

I know. I wrote that myself in my previous post (see ^^^^).

>> I can read and understand code without GOTO much easier, faster, and
>> more reliable, so why in heaven should I be interested in something,
>> that greatly increases the probability that code that I want to read is
>> less readable? I'm not a masochist.
>
> And that is why GOTO containing programs are more costly to maintain. The
> answer is to choose not to read them. I suspect that if people want you
> to read their programs and you refuse to give them the time because
> they contain GOTOs, those people would either remove the GOTOs or
> not ask you to read them.

The question for me is not whether or not someone asks me to read
her/his program. As I wrote above, it is my own intention to read and
understand several programs. If there is anything unclear in my previous
explanation, please tell me. Then I'll try to say it in other words.
I can only speak of myself, but I think the same considerations apply to
other people, who would like to have good readable source code, in order
to learn from it.

>>> I would never use GOTO in any of my Euphoria programs.
>>> I would never deny other people the use of GOTO in a Euphoria program. Even
>>> though I would find it hard to trust such a program
>>
>> Me too. And why should there be any reason to encourage writing of
>> programs that are not trustworthy??
>
> The presence of a language contruct in a programming language does not
> necessarily encourage its use. For example, I am not, or have ever been,
> encouraged to write DOS graphics programs in Euphoria.

Sorry, I'm not always able to express myself exactly in a foreign
language. Maybe 'encourage' was not the proper expression. Perhaps you
agree to the following wording:
"The presence of a language contruct in a programming language increases
the probability, that this construct will be used -- compared to the
situation, where this construct doesn't exist in the regarding language."

I also have to re-write my above question:
"Why should there be any reason to increase (or to appreciate that
other people, companies or circumstances will increase) the probability
of programs that are not trustworthy?

>>> and I would give it a poor 'style' score 
>>>
>>> It sort like the 'free speech' position: I would defend a person's right
>>> to expression even if I disagreed with that person's expression.
>>
>> Derek, there are already dozens of languages with a GOTO statement.
>> There is no need that *every* language should have a GOTO statement, is
>> it? Diversity in this context means IMHO, that besides all those
>> languages which contain GOTO, there are also languages that don't
>> contain it.
>
> Again, the same argument could be used to suggest that some things in Euphoria
> ought to be removed because they also exist in other languages. The
> same argument could also be used to reject some changes to Euphoria
> (eg. Assignment on declaration) because such a thing already exists in
> other languages.

Yes, but this fact doesn't make the argument less valid.
Please tell me whether you think that every programming language should
have a GOTO statement. If the answer is 'yes', please tell me the reason why.

> On the other hand, adding a contruct which will help some of your
> customer base and *not* hurt other customers, might be worthy of
> consideration.

I agree. But this doesn't apply to GOTO. It *would* hurt me (and other
customers, too). If there is anything unclear in my previous explanation
regarding this point, please tell me. Then I'll try to say it in other
words.

>>> I believe that GOTO always leads to programs which are expensive to
>>> maintain. However, if that cost is acceptable, then the use of GOTO is
>>> fine.
>>
>> The one who writes a program with GOTO, and the one who has to maintain
>> it, might be different persons. The maintaining person probably was not
>> asked beforehand, whether s/he considers the cost acceptable.
>
> Agreed. But I choose my words carefully. So I repeat them "if that cost
> is acceptable". In the situation where code is being maintained by people
> who did not write it, the cost is nearly always unacceptable. Thus I
> would say that in those situations, which are the majority, that GOTO
> is not acceptable.

I see.

>> Also, Euphoria is the most elegant programming language that I've ever
>> seen. GOTO in Euphoria would look like bird droppings on the face of
>> Mona Lisa. 
>
> Euphoria is truely an elegant language. But the "Mona Lisa" still has
> some warts.

Agreed.
(But bird droppings are not a proper treatment of warts, believe me.)

Regards,
   Juergen

-- 
... there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are /obviously/ no deficiencies and the other
is to make it so complicated that there are no /obvious/ deficiencies.
[C.A.R. Hoare (1987), The Emperor's Old Clothes]

71. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 10, 2004
• 571 views

Tone Škoda wrote:
> 
> 
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> > > The presence of a language contruct in a programming language does not
> > > necessarily encourage its use. For example, I am not, or have ever been,
> > > encouraged to write DOS graphics programs in Euphoria.
> 
> if there exists two or more ways to do the same thing, be it in language or
> library
> (C++ is typical example, createForm() in win32lib another), it (for me)
> greatly complicates
> that language or library. here's why: many times it is hard to decide which
> method
> to use. you have to know what are differences between those two methods, and
> so you
> have to know details of both methods to know their differences. and i dont
> like language
> or library where you have to remember a lot of things, or if you do it one way
> it might
> not be the best way.
> 
> in this area is euphoria very good.
> 
> 
> analogy with dos graphics is not very good. dos graphics does specific job and
> no other
> thing does that job. goto and elsif do basically the same thing, or can do the
> same
> thing.
> 
> this is why structures could complicate eu. :/

Okay. I can understand your opinion. I guess that you, and a number of
other Euphoria coders here, will not like my programming language when
I finish developing it. And that's fine too.

I'm not trying to have GOTO added to Euphoria. I simply don't care if it's
in the language or not. I will never use it. And if someone writes a
program that contains GOTO then I will work out if I can be bothered
reading it. If I can be bothered, I will read it, otherwise I won't 
read it.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

73. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Unkmar" <L3Euphoria at bellsouth.net> Nov 10, 2004
• 556 views

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Derek Parnell"
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: The fate of Euphoria


> 
> 
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> 
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Please tell me whether you think that every programming language should
>> have a GOTO statement. If the answer is 'yes', please tell me the reason why.
> 
> I do not think that every programming language should have a GOTO. Besides,
> for Functional Languages GOTO has no meaning.
> 
> The key word is "should". I see no necessary reason for every language
> to have GOTO. I also see no necessary reason for any procedural language
> to not have GOTO. 
> 
> I DO NOT CARE! 
> 
> It honestly does not worry me if Euphoria has a GOTO or not. I will
> not use it. If other people use it then that's their problem and not 
> mine. If people use GOTO in a program they want me to maintain or read,
> and the use of the GOTO is not *justified*, it is still their problem
> because I would refuse to maintain it as is. 
> 
> We agree to disagree, okay? 
> 
> -- 
> Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia
> 

Here, here.  Or in normal speak, I agree.

    unkmar

75. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 10, 2004
• 539 views

On 9 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Juergen Luethje wrote:

> 
> 
> Kat wrote:
> 
> > On 8 Nov 2004, at 20:18, Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> >> Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> My biggest beef with the goto statement is that it is usally highly
> >>> abused,
> >>> sometimes to the point where the program is literally unreadable, by the
> >>> time you figure out where all those jumps are going to, you could have
> >>> totally rewritten an application just like it.
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >
> > Then you both are misusing it.
> 
> LOL. I don't use goto at all. That might be "misusing" from your point
> of view.
> Before I discovered Euphoria, I used PoerBASIC, which has a goto
> statement. But I never used it, because I wanted to write good readable
> code, and also I didn't need it at all.

And you would not be forced to write code using it in Eu either.

> >>> We really don't want to start the goto wars of 4 or 5 years ago on here,
> >>> it
> >>> tended to get pretty nasty, and ending up with each side pretty much
> >>> saying,
> >>> this is my opionion and I'm sticking to it, as stuborn as I am.
> >>
> >> I agree. However, people who enjoy crying "goto,goto" in public at least 3
> >> times a month, should not be surprised, when they'll get some replies.
> >
> > I am not surprised to get a reply, but i have been coding in higher level
> > languages since 1979, and various assy before and after. I still wish to
> > have
> > a goto at my disposal.
> 
> There are actually dozens of languages that have a goto statement.

So if there is anything you want in an otherwise great language, i should tell 
you to go find it in another language and leave us alone here?

Kat

77. Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 10, 2004
• 531 views
• Last edited Nov 11, 2004

Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> schrieb am 10.11.04 19:42:18:

> On 9 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Juergen Luethje wrote:

<snip>

>>> I still wish to have a goto at my disposal.
>>
>> There are actually dozens of languages that have a goto statement.
>
> So if there is anything you want in an otherwise great language, i
> should tell you to go find it in another language and leave us alone
> here?

It's not my job to tell you, what you should do.
You can read above, what I wrote.

Regards,
   Juergen