1. Wish lists
- Posted by Daniel Hirsch <daniel at KTB.NET>
Jan 05, 1997
-
Last edited Jan 06, 1997
As to all the talk about wish lists for Euphoria, heres mine...
1. DEFINATLY Windows support..I think this would be absolutely =
incredible if you can keep anywhere NEAR the same simplicity of Euphoria =
in a windows environment. I have been using Visual C++ for a while now =
for Win32, and while very powerful, it can be quite a pain. I would =
hope that this will get a decent amount of attention.
2. I would like to see a C/C++ type CASE command. I don't see what =
everybody's problem is with this. granted, I don't know much about =
other lanuages anymore (Qbasic and Pascal), but I find the CASE command =
to be so useful for certain functions, and an if-elseif loop is more =
coding, harder to read, and harder to add or change. The only thing =
that would be nice is if there was more room for expressions in the case =
command than C seems to allow easily. =20
3. Some way of function prototyping (forward declarations). I know this =
one may not be possible, but I hate having to write ALL of my functions =
and procedures up front in the code. =20
Well, that's all I can think of right now...Later people!!!
*****************
Drive C: format complete. Send me $1000000 to undo it!
daniel at ktb.net
http://www.ktb.net/~daniel
2. Re: Wish lists
>2. I would like to see a C/C++ type CASE command. I don't see what =
>everybody's problem is with this. granted, I don't know much about =
>other lanuages anymore (Qbasic and Pascal), but I find the CASE command =
>to be so useful for certain functions, and an if-elseif loop is more =
>coding, harder to read, and harder to add or change. The only thing =
>that would be nice is if there was more room for expressions in the case =
>command than C seems to allow easily.
I don't think it is an issue of anyone having a problem with your suggestion.
As a former C programmer, I understand and appreciate your comments about
the CASE command. I managed to get around traditional if-else tree overload
by simply going no more than three levels and using meaningfully named
subroutines. This made my code easier to read and maintain.
I would imagine any differing opinions stem from the fact Euphoria is a
departure from regular programming languages, particularly in data
management. Because of this, some people may not want changes that would make
Euphoria work more like older languages of the past and becoming
more difficult to use. I don't work for RDS but if I were them I would
continue on the present trend of creating new groundbreaking features for
Euphoria rather than borrow from the past. Just my lone, humble opinion of
course. 8)
David Gay
http://www.interlog.com/~moggie/euphoria.htm
