Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by Jd63 Feb 24, 2019
- 1528 views
The idea behind 4.0 was to provide tested "wheels" which users could access, rather than having to invent their own versions. This has an additional benefit; there's a standard version so that it's easier to get help from numerous users, rather than trying to get help with a library that few people use and the author of which is no longer around.
While it may look like people were implementing "C-like" functions, in reality those are things that any modern program may need to use. Computers can do a lot more than they were capable of doing when Euphoria was first developed. It would be counter-productive to ignore that.
Irv, I hear what you're saying and it's not my intention to start any flame wars or debate the merits of 3.1.1 vs 4.x, which would be pointless. Yes, I agree that work on the 4.x series was a commendable effort to improve eu and bring it into line with more "industrial strength" languages like Python and Java. I remember from the days of the old mailing list there were many who were frustrated with Rob's reluctance to implement certain features (like namespaces, for example). I guess it just depends on what your needs are; I've not really come up against the limits of 3.1.1, but then I only use eu for relatively small (but quite complex) projects.
And maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems a little contradictory to say that the "C-like" functions are needed for modern programs when C is a lot older than Euphoria (even the early versions)?
