Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 38887 views
I will not bother to answer most of his comments as we are very far apart in our thinking and approach.
Actually, I believe you'd attempted to address most of them. The only exception that I notice is the most basic one.
This omission - and complete silence from you - make me question whether or not you are just making things up to prove your point.
However, i will try and answer this comment.
Matt Lewis said: "When programming, one typically has to type."
That is the crux of my mention of IDE, that types for you. You rejected it outright without thinking about it and without thinking about how our first conversations started here (Recall Unicode).
I never rejected the idea of an IDE that "types for you", simply because I was never given the chance - this is the first time you've made this claim.
In any case, unless the IDE supports coding with zero keyboard usage, my statement remains true: When programming, one typically has to type.
But my primary argument was that your claim of this IDE actually hurts your argument for changing wxEuphoria, because the IDE makes it too easy to use it (or any other library and language for that matter).
The IDE we are using was written in HLA (High Level Assembler) two years ago in another class by another professor (i.e. under his direction). Last year we extended it somewhat for Unicode. This year's group is discussing in depth scripting and various techniques, BUT IN ALL DISCUSSIONS, IT IS MY DIRECTION to them that they do not forget the united nations of the Languages of the world.
As to advertising a commercial product, the IDE we have is NOT for sale and is NOT a commercially available product. I was hoping to get to use wxEuphoria to see if I can bring the IDE to a little more understandable level to the newer group of programmers.
Is it available to the public at all? If not, why ask that wxEuphoria be modified to fit to the standards of the IDE? The developers who implement those changes and the regular users would not see the benefit. Only you would.
If it's not available to the public, why even mention it? Does it even exist? You can't name the university that you claim to be affiliated with. You haven't given this IDE a name either. What is it called?
However much people promote C plus
I am not aware of a language called C plus. C++, C+-, and C--, sure. but not C plus or C+.
Did you mean C++ or C# ? In that case, what does this say about your abilities, if you can't even get the name of a language right? A language name that isn't even 4 characters long!
If you have gone through the intricacies of typing in different languages, if you have done real work with Unicode as applied to all languages INCLUDING languages FROM "EAST OF SUEZ" then only would you realize the beauty of my statement ""When programming, one does not have to necessarily type everything or even most of the things in the program."
The idea of saving programmer time is always straightforwardly a good idea. We are getting off track however - my point was that your IDE was so good, that no changes in wxEuphoria are necessary to take advantage of its features. In fact, the recommended changes you are advocating would not offer any improvement.
(Ok, you might get unreadably long tooltips. But as I pointed out, you can fix that in the IDE itself.)
As far as I am concerned my input on this subject and particularly about wxEuphora functions is over. I have had good enough input from you all, and realize that you all like the 1600 functions and I like the 600 functions my team has devised.
I believe the main views of the other contributors of this thread were the opposite - that there is room for improvement, just not enough time from the developers of wxEuphoria to put the necessary effort into it.
But the easiest way to prove that your 600 functions are better is actually quite simple. Show us your complete changes. All 600 modified wxEuphoria functions.
Unless, of course, you are making this up and no such modified library exists.
a mental and physical barrier which seems to baffle most Westerners and obstruct their thinking
You will never know how ironic that statement you made is. Not everyone on this forum is necessarily a Westerner. In fact, it is rather offensive that you have simply assumed this.
