1. object oriented Euphoria...& comments
For what it's worth from a novice, here's my two cents worth.
I got a bug awhile back to write a computer moderated email game (sort of, I
could do THAT better). I've had one Fortran class back in college (in '89, I
think!!). That's the sum total of my programming experience. I knew nothing
about nothing. I bought some books on C and Java, looked at Pascal and some
various BASIC programs out there and rejected them all because they were too
steep a learning curve, too graphic oriented, or weren't actively supported.
Then I found Euphoria (angels heard singing!! LOL!!) and I found the right tool
for the job. Learning curve wasn't too bad, use of sequences and data base (i.e
EDB) was exactly what I needed for a email game. And it has a active base of
users.
My point of all this is that when you start changing the concept of a basic
programming language that is easy to use, easy to understand, but can be added
onto to create GUI, graphics, internet apps, or even OOP, you negate the
original
concept. What you'd end up with by making the base program with GUI or OOP
already included is just a different flavor of JAVA.
If my vote counts for anything, it's this: Keep the program as it is (or close
anyway), keep it easy to learn, easy to use, do not add OOP to the base
distribution.
In fact, I'd vote for not adding a whole lot to the base distro. It is very
good
as is, and you can download and include just about anything else you would want
anyway, so let the user customize and they see fit.
As I learn and gain experience and try other programs, I may also need OOP or
GUI, but right now, I don't need these things, and that, I believe is the
beauty of this programming tool. They are not forced on you.
Just my 2 cents worth.
2. Re: object oriented Euphoria...& comments
Hi there,
I've often thought about this myself. We dont need another
programming language that is 'almost' the same as one that
is already out there and is also free. But there are other
sides of this story too.
For one, oop components such as classes are just a natural
extension of programming itself. Once you create hundreds
of programs you begin to realize something like this. It's
just the natural order of things to want to arrange huge
collections of things in an orderly fashion, and classes do
in fact work out very well. As you suggest they should be
optional, but they should also be included in case someone
wants to use them.
Take care,
Al
E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."
