Re: Who is compiling Eu, and why?
- Posted by katsmeow Jan 30, 2015
- 1755 views
I must disagree with you. I don't believe it would be useful at all to have that list. After the years which have gone by, and your comments on this thread, i believe there is no point in making a list of additional features to have in Euphoria.
This disrespectful reply is a CodeOfConduct violation. Further posts along the same lines may be edited or deleted.
Please, list the points of disrespect. I attacked and/or disparaged no one. It's a matter of fact that years have gone by, and that you recommended Phix, it's not disrespect as far as i can tell.
Kat
This is a reasonable request, and I'll honor it this time. In general though, I think whether or not something is disrespectful is obvious. (So, don't consider this list binding or comprehensive or anything.)
There is only one point: "your comments on this thread" - I'm all for adding new features to OE, yet - because I point out that implementing most features require C coding - you are stating that I am taking the opposite view. It's self-evident that I don't hold the opposite view, and very disrespectful of you to portray me as something that I'm not.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please take it off the forum by emailing _tom or ChrisB. Any additional posts about this will be deleted and/or edited.
Alright, i understand your frustration, katsmeow, and why you don't see the point of bringing up ideas that have probably already been ignored or forgotten in the past. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are some people that really do want to spend the time it takes to add some features to Euphoria at this point in time. What features does Phix have and/or what other general features should Euphoria have?
OE has been compared to Phix in the past, it's already been decided that the way Phix is built, everything about it's insides, and therefor what it can do, is incompatable with OE.
I feel if i say anything else, i will offend jimcbrown and be banned again.
useless
