1. Structures...
Okay, time for my two cents....
First of all, Euphoria DOESN'T need structures, it is a performance
killer, and i'm gonna start to whine if we keep talkin about
structures...
If we want structures, why don't we make a Euphoria program to handle
structures?...
Hold on, don't we already have one? if we do, why make it _perminant_ to
Euphoria?
The only reason I like euphoria is its straightforwardness... Now, we
add structures, and it will become like C/C++ w/ sequences, or pretty
damn close...
My two pitiful cents...
-- "LEVIATHAN"
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
2. Re: Structures...
- Posted by Irv Mullins <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
Jan 31, 1999
-
Last edited Feb 01, 1999
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:17:32 PST, LEVIATHAN LEVIATHAN <kiduv1999 at HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
>Okay, time for my two cents....
>
>First of all, Euphoria DOESN'T need structures, it is a performance
>killer, and i'm gonna start to whine if we keep talkin about
>structures...
A "performance killer", eh? On what do you base that opinion?
Proof, please. Or, let's make it easier: show us that Pascal, Icon,
C, and a dozen other languages which do use structures are slower
than Euphoria.
>If we want structures, why don't we make a Euphoria program to handle
>structures?...
>
You do it. Then prove it works.
>My two pitiful cents...
Everybody's entitled to an opinion.
Irv
3. Re: Structures...
>First of all, Euphoria DOESN'T need structures, it is a performance
>killer, and i'm gonna start to whine if we keep talkin about
>structures...
Performance killer ? Hello ?
Its cuts down *all* overhead of a sequence .versus. integer/atom.
>The only reason I like euphoria is its straightforwardness... Now, we
>add structures, and it will become like C/C++ w/ sequences, or pretty
>damn close...
If any other person is going to start using such arguments, im going to bang
my head against the wall. Hello? This is EUPHORIA, not C.
Here are a couple of multiple choice questions:
What is most important in making a programming language ?
a) That its a good, practical language
b) That its not C.
Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
helpfull in other languages ?
a) True
b) False
Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to compare
everything to C, problaly due to some tragic experience with C ?
a) Yes, thats the reason I can't shut up about C!
b) No, I just make this statement about C, because here on the list
everybody is against C, and this way I'll be liked.
c) No, I dont like structures on itself, and C has got nothing to do with
it.
What letter comes after A and B in the Alphabet ?
a) G
b) C
c) respectively B and C
Do you actually have some experience programming C which you base your
judgement about C on ? And do you consider C to be the same as a feature 99%
of all languages have: structures or at least so much the same, such an
argument in actually of _any_ (?) meaning in the discussion ?
a) Yes
b) No
Ralf
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
-- And no, this is not a flame.
-- This is me getting sharper, when I have to repeat myself, because
everybody keeps starting the discussion up over and over again, *instead* of
going against any arguments given. If this offended any one... oh well.
4. Re: Structures...
>The only reason I like euphoria is its straightforwardness... Now, we
>add structures, and it will become like C/C++ w/ sequences, or pretty
>damn close...
So the only thing that separtes C/C++ and Euphoria are structures?
How about pointers, run-time subscript checking, clear syntax, and
a lot more on euphoria\doc\c.doc
Regards,
Daniel Berstein
daber at pair.com
5. Re: Structures...
I'd Just like to point out for those who are against structures, you don't
have to use them if you don't want to. As for me I'm all for stuctures,
well now you have my two cents.
Bret
6. Re: Structures...
In a message dated 99-02-01 19:08:01 EST, you write:
<< If any other person is going to start using such arguments, im going to
bang
my head against the wall. Hello? This is EUPHORIA, not C.
Here are a couple of multiple choice questions:
What is most important in making a programming language ?
a) That its a good, practical language
b) That its not C.
Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
helpfull in other languages ?
a) True
b) False
Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to compare
everything to C, problaly due to some tragic experience with C ?
a) Yes, thats the reason I can't shut up about C!
b) No, I just make this statement about C, because here on the list
everybody is against C, and this way I'll be liked.
c) No, I dont like structures on itself, and C has got nothing to do with
it.
What letter comes after A and B in the Alphabet ?
a) G
b) C
c) respectively B and C
Do you actually have some experience programming C which you base your
judgement about C on ? And do you consider C to be the same as a feature 99%
of all languages have: structures or at least so much the same, such an
argument in actually of _any_ (?) meaning in the discussion ?
a) Yes
b) No
Ralf
nieuwen at xs4all.nl >>
Ralf, THANK YOU.
I have been trying to explain this too. Your bluntness certainly helps. C is
a good programming language and borrowing a good component of it simply
enhances our programming experience. If you don't like structures when there
implemented into Euphoria (fingers crossed) just DONT USE THEM!
Adam Weeden
WeedenSoft Technologies
7. Re: Structures...
Adam Weeden <SkaMan325 at AOL.COM> wrote:
>If you don't like structures when there
>implemented into Euphoria (fingers crossed) just DONT USE THEM!
It's not a simple as that. Structures would change the whole nature of
Euphoria. Any programmer who wanted to avoid the use of structures in their
programs would *still* have to know that they're there. Especially in the
creation of code libraries for other programmers to use -- exceptional
conditions involving structures would *have* to be taken into account.
Yes, Ralf made a good point about some peoples' knee-jerk reactions against
structures. But your argument is little more than a knee-jerk reaction in
the opposite direction.
Gabriel Boehme
8. Re: Structures...
Here are a few multiple choice questions:
What is most important in making a programming language?
a) That its a good, practical language
b) That its has structures.
Just because other languages have structures, does that automatically mean
Euphoria should have them too?
a) Yes
b) No
Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to add
structures to a language which cannot easily accommodate them, probably due
to some love-affair with structures?
a) Yes, that's the reason I want structures!
b) No, I just make this statement about structures because here on the list
almost everybody wants structures, and this way I'll be liked.
c) No, I seriously think structures would be good for Euphoria.
What are the basic types of variables in Euphoria?
a) objects, sequences, atoms, integers
b) two basic objects: sequences and atoms
c) we need structures!!!
Do you actually have some experience programming with structures in other
languages, which you base your judgments about structures on? (incoherent
ramble deleted)
a) Yes
b) No
No, this is not a flame. This is an inverted version of a questionnaire Ralf
so generously provided us with. I hope *both* sides are clear on this now.
:)
Gabriel Boehme
9. Re: Structures...
I was only using the multiple-choice-question-thingie to disprove arguments
such as 'c with sequences'.
Now, lets look at your response in that light.
>What is most important in making a programming language?
>a) That its a good, practical language
>b) That its has structures.
However, which argument are *you* disproving ?
That we want structures rather than a good practical language ?
Am I not claming that structures make it *more* practical ?
This was the question I asked: (or something simerlar)
>What is the most important in making a programming language ?
>a) That its a good, practical language
>b) That its the opposite of C
If you question is suppose to counter mine, should I assume you think a good
practical language is the opposite of C ?
If so.. I wonder why we even have variables.." C has them too..!!! Arg.. I
*hate* variables.. Do you want EUphoria to be C without pointers ?"
>Just because other languages have structures, does that automatically mean
>Euphoria should have them too?
>a) Yes
>b) No
This was my question:
>Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
>helpfull in other languages ?
>a) True
>b) False
The point of my question (which you appearently totally missed.. oh well)
was that you were assuming structures to be a c-like thingie. Or at least,
you were immidiately associating C with structures. I havent heard any one
say 'Do we want basic with sequences ?' That was my point.
Now, precisely in which way does your question counter mine ?
Unlike you, I never used the fact that many language have structure as an
argument, while you used the fact that C has structures as an argument.
The point of discussion is to counter each others arguments. Precisely what
should i do with your return questions ?
I used those questions to make a point. (a point I made before, but was
ignored, which motivated me to make these questions since they are a
'little' more confronting). Your questions however, do not make any point, o
r it could off course be me... if they are suppose to.. please explain
them.. I wanne see the light too, you know.
>Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to add
>structures to a language which cannot easily accommodate them, probably due
>to some love-affair with structures?
>a) Yes, that's the reason I want structures!
>b) No, I just make this statement about structures because here on the list
>almost everybody wants structures, and this way I'll be liked.
>c) No, I seriously think structures would be good for Euphoria.
Well, this one I can answer: C
However, this was my question:
>
>What are the basic types of variables in Euphoria?
>a) objects, sequences, atoms, integers
>b) two basic objects: sequences and atoms
>c) we need structures!!!
>
>Do you actually have some experience programming with structures in other
>languages, which you base your judgments about structures on? (incoherent
>ramble deleted)
>a) Yes
>b) No
>
>No, this is not a flame. This is an inverted version of a questionnaire
Ralf
>so generously provided us with. I hope *both* sides are clear on this now.
>:)
>
>Gabriel Boehme
>
10. Re: Structures...
In response to Ralf's response to my version of his questionnaire:
I wasn't submitting it as a formal rebuttal of your questionnaire. Yours did
a superb job of pointing out that many people dislike structures just
because they're in C. *Mine* was submitted simply to point out that many
people *like* structures just because they're in other programming
languages.
Now, in response to some of Ralf's comments:
>However, which argument are *you* disproving ?
>That we want structures rather than a good practical language ?
>Am I not claming that structures make it *more* practical ?
Yes, but you haven't given us any examples to *prove* if they will make it
more practical. I've given more examples than most people will probably want
to read about why they are *not* practical in Euphoria.
>If you question is suppose to counter mine, should I assume you think a
good
>practical language is the opposite of C ?
>If so.. I wonder why we even have variables.." C has them too..!!! Arg.. I
>*hate* variables.. Do you want EUphoria to be C without pointers ?"
Now you're just being silly. :)
>>Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
>>helpfull in other languages ?
>>a) True
>>b) False
>
>The point of my question (which you appearently totally missed.. oh well)
>was that you were assuming structures to be a c-like thingie. Or at least,
>you were immidiately associating C with structures. I havent heard any one
>say 'Do we want basic with sequences ?' That was my point.
>Now, precisely in which way does your question counter mine ?
>Unlike you, I never used the fact that many language have structure as an
>argument, while you used the fact that C has structures as an argument.
No, I didn't. In "Problems with structures", I don't even mention C.
Again, you are completely missing the point. If you've actually *read* my
other posts on structures, you would know that the anti-structure position
is not as shallow as you have portrayed it to be here. You're beating up a
straw man, my friend.
>The point of discussion is to counter each others arguments. Precisely what
>should i do with your return questions ?
>I used those questions to make a point. (a point I made before, but was
>ignored, which motivated me to make these questions since they are a
>'little' more confronting). Your questions however, do not make any point,
o
>r it could off course be me... if they are suppose to.. please explain
>them.. I wanne see the light too, you know.
I used my questions to make a point, too. There are people on *both* sides
who are not thinking clearly on this issue. Some want structures just
because they like structures, and others dislike structures just because
they don't like C. Both positions are *emotional*. They argue for something
out of *feeling*. These are not compelling reasons for making changes to a
programming language.
Many of the people arguing *for* structures in Euphoria don't seem to have
investigated what Euphoria can *already* do. Yes, namespace issues cause
major headaches. But do we automatically need structures to solve them? No.
Euphoria is fundamentally *different* from all those other languages, and
structures won't fit without a lot of major changes to the language.
I'll admit, it was late when I wrote my version of your questionnaire, and I
probably shouldn't have sent it off without thinking more clearly about it.
For that, I apologize.
However, this does not change the fact that there is more to being
anti-structure than disliking C. There are a whole host of sticky problems
structures face in Euphoria. I invite you to read my earlier posts for
detailed, specific examples.
Gabriel Boehme
11. Structures...
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01BE50A8.E2A8E580
charset="iso-8859-1"
OK, here is my final post on this discussion because everyone is so dead set
in their opinion (which isn't a bad thing, i admire those who stand behind
their beliefs). No one is right here. For some of us structures make life
easier, for others it makes life difficult, and in suggesting\disproving
arguments we help move Euphoria towards being a better language. It gets to
a point though where enough is enough. I say we stop all of our childish
bickering (everyone is guilty, including me) in this matter and let RDS
decide, it is their product and THEIR decision. Granted they want our
feedback on how to improve and elevate Euphoria, but we have all made our
points and the pseudoflaming that is going on needs to be stopped for a
number of reasons:
1) The new users. They subscribe to the list and this argument is thrust
upon them with half of them confused and fleeing. This is another thing
that contribute to Euphoria's (undeserved) lack of credibility.
2) The "Just For Fun" users. They don't want to hear the immature rants,
they just want to do something to enetertain themselves, and have fun. If
they wanted to argue they wouldn't be programming, they would have joined a
debating group in their community.
3) The professionals. The few professionals, including me, who use Euphoria
are trying to improve their relationship with their customers. Bickering
with other Euphorians simply wastes our time.
So, to make a long rant short, lets just quit and leave it up to RDS to
figure out where the pulse of the Euphoria programming community lies. And
only time will tell if each of us is pleased with what they decide.
Thank You,
Adam Weeden
WeedenSoft Technologies
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01BE50A8.E2A8E580
name="Adam W Weeden.vcf"
