1. Trace & Structures
- Posted by John DeHope <jwap at TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Jul 24, 1998
-
Last edited Jul 25, 1998
I received some criticism for my negative comments about Euphoria's
Trace facility. I am going to give Trace a try again, this time with a
more open mind.
As for structures, I can see how RDS might have thought the immense
functionality of sequences would override the need for sequences. After
all, who needs structures: fixed size, fixed contents. But I think my
little code examples pretty much made the point. My programs routinely
deal with sequences that have dozens of entries, and structures would
make this *so* much easier.
RDS, what do you say?
2. Re: Trace & Structures
John DeHope writes:
> As for structures, I can see how RDS might have thought
> the immense functionality of sequences would override the
> need for [structures]. After all, who needs structures: fixed size,
> fixed contents. But I think my little code examples pretty much
> made the point. My programs routinely deal with sequences
> that have dozens of entries, and structures would make
> this *so* much easier.
I appreciated the recent suggestions you made about
structures. I didn't reply, because the issue of adding
structures to Euphoria was discussed on several
occasions in the past. I'm not dead-set against adding them.
I can certainly see their value, but when a language consists
of just 2 types of data: atoms and sequences, it's a major
step to add a third type. I'll give it some more thought, but
don't hold your breath. 
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
3. Re: Trace & Structures
-----Original Message-----
De: Robert Craig <rds at EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Para: EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu
<EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu>
Fecha: Sábado 25 de Julio de 1998 01:22 AM
Asunto: Re: Trace & Structures
>John DeHope writes:
>> As for structures, I can see how RDS might have thought
>> the immense functionality of sequences would override the
>> need for [structures]. After all, who needs structures: fixed size,
>> fixed contents. But I think my little code examples pretty much
>> made the point. My programs routinely deal with sequences
>> that have dozens of entries, and structures would make
>> this *so* much easier.
>
>I appreciated the recent suggestions you made about
>structures. I didn't reply, because the issue of adding
>structures to Euphoria was discussed on several
>occasions in the past. I'm not dead-set against adding them.
>I can certainly see their value, but when a language consists
>of just 2 types of data: atoms and sequences, it's a major
>step to add a third type. I'll give it some more thought, but
>don't hold your breath.
I think structures will greatly simplify Windows programming. As
I can see there're 2 possible paths in Euphoria evolution:
1.- Implemet structures for Windows programming ease.
2.- Provide some kind of wrapper or toolkit (like Win32Lib).
Both paths can coexist. If you want to keep Euphoria language
definition strict the only way is (2), but take in mind that even
Pascal has evolved into Object Pascal and then into Delphi...
I really like the component/package approach.
Regards,
Daniel Berstein
daber at pair.com
