1. SS & the Real World
WAS: Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> > -- Please pay no attention to how SS is implemented --
> > That is the problem of the implementor
> > An SS is a structure whose elements are accessed by name. only.
>
> For me, structures are just fine, actually desirable,
> when their effect on the simplicity of the language
> and libraries is ignored, and when implementation issues are ignored.
> Please read what I said back in 2001...
>
> <a
> href="http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=8&fromYear=6&toMonth=8&toYear=6&postedBy=rds&keywords=structures+bloat">http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=8&fromYear=6&toMonth=8&toYear=6&postedBy=rds&keywords=structures+bloat</a>
>
> Maybe Matt or yourself, since one or both of you seem to have
> implemented structures, can explain where I'm wrong about either the
> implementation costs, or the loss of language and library simplicity.
>
It is really hard to imagine how you could be convinced, given that you
have formed your opinions through 10 years of consideration.
Basically you are not wrong. There is months of effort to implement this.
There is a tiny hit to performance. The library does have to be examined.
The result would have bugs at first.
> I don't need to be sold on the value of structures as an isolated
> language design concept. I need persuading in these other two areas.
According to the post you linked:
"The worst part is that Euphoria's simplicity will
have been compromised severely."
"In an effort to make one aspect of coding somewhat
more robust, you will have seriously degraded the language
as a whole, both the ease of understanding it, and the
ease of implementing and maintaining it in the future."
Sounds pretty definitive to me.
Thanks for pointing out that post - I might have wasted weeks on this.
Regards
KtB
