1. enough chatter
The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask questions.
Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe it's
vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
Bernie
2. Re: enough chatter
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:53 AM
Subject: enough chatter
> The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
>
> language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
>
> Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask
questions.
>
> Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
>
> can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe it's
>
> vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
>
> was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
>
> can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
I was thinking the puters (and the languages they are programmed in) were
tools to Get Something Done. The faster a useful application was developed,
and the faster it ran with the most stability was the sign of a good
programmer using a good language, and good programming tools.
How was i to know the purpose of a new language was mere mental exercise? I
guess i'm just not esoteric enough. Sounds like you could have said: "The
purpose of Windows95 is to use the OS as it was designed and try to develop
aids to help other programmers so they can gain from your quality code and
experienced skills." , and if that were the case, we should all go back to
assy code and gwbasic or msdos5 or unix, and improve our skills there.
<sigh> I am trying to sidestep philosophy here,, but i thought the reason
for Eu was to improve the plight of programmers with better faster and
easier scripting tools. I once had most of 6502 machine code memorized, but
that didn't really make me a better programmer,, cause i was too involved
with how the puter did things, and not how the application did things. Darn
it, when i want to skip some code, i don't want to bracket that code and
test if it should be executed, i want to goto some target on the other side
of it, the very definition of skipping it! How the interpreter/compiler
treats my goto, how it is translated to machine code, i don't really care
anymore,, just *do* it. I am in search of a 4th gen language, not another
dos batch language. I want to concentrate more on program flow on a higher
level. You don't haveto want what i want, you don't haveto code like i do,
or use the same words in whatever language,, if Eu gets a goto command, you
don't haveto use it,, same for an "open sock/port/file <name>" command or a
"local var" list or a "start thread <name>" command. The more versatile a
language is, it can be used in more varied places by programmers with a
wider range of programming styles. Your mileage may vary.
Kat,
growl.
working on that "quality code and experienced skills" prior to distribution.
3. Re: enough chatter
But imagine how bland and boring this discussion list would be if all we did
was post bits of code. The type of person who uses Euphoria is likely the type
of person to throw a wrench in the works of the list, or go off on a tangent
about a mission to mars (and maybe how it relates to Euphoria itself), or talk
about things they'd like to see in future versions.
I wouldn't be a part of this list, if it weren't for the intelligent,
entertaining, sometimes enlightening discussion that occurs here.
Regards,
Greg
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
> language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
> Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask questions.
> Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
> can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe it's
> vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
> was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
> can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
> Bernie
4. Re: enough chatter
- Posted by Jason Gade <jgade at NETZERO.NET>
Nov 14, 1999
-
Last edited Nov 15, 1999
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 8:14 AM
Subject: enough chatter
>The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
>
>language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
>
>Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask
questions.
>
>Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
>
>can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe
it's
>
>vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
>
>was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
>
>can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
>
>Bernie
>
Guilty as charged! I just got tired reading all of these ideas being thrown
around, so I thought that I would mention my ideas, mainly leaving the
language mostly as-is. But then, I had to actually defend my positions and
I got caught up in that.
I actually have written some (simple) code. In fact, here is my version of
a recursive sum function:
-- Sum.e
-- Ver 1.1
-- November 1999
-- Function to (recursively) add all of the elements
-- of a sequence together
-- Usage: a = Sum ( s )
-- Returns the sum of all elements of s.
global function Sum( sequence values )
integer list_length
atom total
object list_element
total = 0
list_length = length( values )
for i = 1 to list_length do
list_element = values[i]
if sequence( list_element ) then
total += Sum( list_element )
else
total += list_element
end if
end for
return total
end function -- Sum
Is there a better solution?
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
5. Re: enough chatter
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:40:56 -0600, Kat <KSMiTH at PELL.NET> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET>
>To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:53 AM
>Subject: enough chatter
>
>
>> The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
>>
>> language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
>>
>> Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask
>questions.
>>
>> Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
>>
>> can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe it's
>>
>> vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
>>
>> was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
>>
>> can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
>
>I was thinking the puters (and the languages they are programmed in) were
>tools to Get Something Done. The faster a useful application was developed,
>and the faster it ran with the most stability was the sign of a good
>programmer using a good language, and good programming tools.
>
>How was i to know the purpose of a new language was mere mental exercise? I
>guess i'm just not esoteric enough. Sounds like you could have said: "The
>purpose of Windows95 is to use the OS as it was designed and try to develop
>aids to help other programmers so they can gain from your quality code and
>experienced skills." , and if that were the case, we should all go back to
>assy code and gwbasic or msdos5 or unix, and improve our skills there.
><sigh> I am trying to sidestep philosophy here,, but i thought the reason
>for Eu was to improve the plight of programmers with better faster and
>easier scripting tools. I once had most of 6502 machine code memorized, but
>that didn't really make me a better programmer,, cause i was too involved
>with how the puter did things, and not how the application did things. Darn
>it, when i want to skip some code, i don't want to bracket that code and
>test if it should be executed, i want to goto some target on the other side
>of it, the very definition of skipping it! How the interpreter/compiler
>treats my goto, how it is translated to machine code, i don't really care
>anymore,, just *do* it. I am in search of a 4th gen language, not another
>dos batch language. I want to concentrate more on program flow on a higher
>level. You don't haveto want what i want, you don't haveto code like i do,
>or use the same words in whatever language,, if Eu gets a goto command, you
>don't haveto use it,, same for an "open sock/port/file <name>" command or a
>"local var" list or a "start thread <name>" command. The more versatile a
>language is, it can be used in more varied places by programmers with a
>wider range of programming styles. Your mileage may vary.
>
>Kat,
>growl.
>working on that "quality code and experienced skills" prior to distribution.
Kat,
I take back every evil thing that I ever said about you. Hooray to your
sentiments. I still think you are wrong about goto, but I'll be glad to
continue to discuss it until one of us convinces the other or not as the
case may be. I really would appreciate some attempt to answer my
last foray against your logic. In an interpretive language, commenting
out works really nicely. Of course, block comments would make it
easier.
Regards,
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
6. Re: enough chatter
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
>
>
> The real challenge is try to use the language the way it
>was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
>can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
For some hints and examples of potentially useful Euphoria extensions check
out www.jsoftware.com. APL starting using sequences around 1980 and J since
its beginning around 6 years ago. Internally J and APL probably bear no
resemblance to Euphoria. These languages are fast on large arguments but
slow if the usual flow control statements need to be used on decent size
arguments or iteratively. Graphing the mandelbrot set is really, really
slow. Euphoria seems like an enticing language to program in mainly for its
simplicity and speed. I wonder how many languages like APL, J, Smalltalk,
Java might benefit from being compiled into Euphoria instead of bytecode or
into C, like APL has been trying to do for 20 years or Smalltalk with much
difficulty? Its seems to me that very good utility libraries, avoidance of
anything that resembles OOP and somehow sidestepping the usual codebloating
that happens to all languages destined to be used significantly would be a
good thing for Euphoria. For a prime example of codebloating check out any
Smalltalk package - thousands and thousands of helpful little bits of code
and everything an object.
Jay Daulton
