1. Re: More hairsplitting with Ralf
I feel like a dog, chasing his own tail... *WOOF!*
Ralf replied:
>>1. You talk about something that doesn't exist as if it is real.
>
>The possibility is real, and the way ex.exe would handle it is pretty
>predictable.
Ah, so you're an existentialist!
The benchmark you showed doesn't benchmark structures - it benchmarks =
atoms. My point was, you can't run the benchmark on *structures* because =
there aren't any structures to run the benchmark on.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic - just the way you use language.
>This however is an theory, RDS could, if they would support this, =
choose to
>use the only other method. Looking up in real-time, however it is more
>complex to code *and* it would be slower anyway, I can be pretty sure, =
they
>wouldn't go that way.
Now *that's* the kind of language I like to see. Words like "theory" and =
"pretty sure".
>> ... lots of technical stuff I don't really dispute
My complaint was that you said my example was "not technically OOP", =
then went ahead and called an example with sequences "objects" without =
(as far as I could see) linking them to class methods.
It seemed like you were trying to have it both ways - criticizing my =
code as not being "OOP", and then using the word "object" where =
"structure" would have been more appropriate. I just couldn't resist =
taking a swipe - shame on me.
>>It *does* make it more complex. Different scope rules for objects, =
special
>>routines for copying, or storing the actual object data, etc. It would =
bring
>>back the one thing that Euphoria had banned from its syntax, namely =
handles.
>>(Pointers are also handles of course)
I wouldn't say that Euphoria has "banned" handles. It has "banned" =
passing parameters by reference - you can't do it, no matter how hard =
you try.=20
On the other hand, Euphoria uses handles all over the place - working =
with files, in routine_id, and so on. I suspect you are trying to say is =
that passing indexes to sequences is a sneaky way to get around not =
being able to pass by reference. Your right!
Taking your statement to it's (il)logical extreme, you'd also ban =
passing pointers to data structures. I'd just *love* to see some of the =
graphic libraries do without that!
-- David Cuny
