1. Re: The fate of Euphoria=20
> Subject: Re: The fate of Euphoria
>
> posted by: Tone =8Akoda <tskoda at email.si> Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>>>> > The presence of a language contruct in a programming language does n=
ot
>>>> > necessarily encourage its use. For example, I am not, or have ever b=
een,
>>>> > 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) g=
reatly complicates
> that language or library. here's why: many times it is hard to decide wh=
ich
> 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 remem=
ber
> 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.
>
In this area Euphoria is very frustrating.
Having several methods to achieve the same result is a necessity if you wan=
t
to improve your code or, better still, improve algorithms or processes.
The contest Derek is hosting right now is a competition between programs th=
at
do the same thing, strictly framed by explicit rules. Differences between
these may be minute really. According to your post, you may find it an
useless, mind-boggling and potentially dangerous exercise I guess?
>
> analogy with dos graphics is not very good. dos graphics does specific jo=
b and no other thing does that job. goto and elsif do basically the same th=
ing, or can do the same thing.
>
> this is why structures could complicate eu. :/
Sorry, but the less letters you have to type, the simpler it is to read cod=
e
in any language, as long as identifiers still identify something. In this
respect, APL or Perl do not encourage clear code, even though they involve
less typing.
Structures reduce the amount of typing, as they take care of a bunch of ind=
ex
mapping etc you no longer have to concenrate on. So they would _simplify_ E=
u,
and will be most welcome.
If you feel uncomfortable with the option, then use structures only, it's a=
better catchall coding scheme probably. :)
CChris
