OOP libraries (was: Multiple includes (was: Rob's going to hate me... (Remainder bug)))
> > > A quote from the Euphoria reference manual:
> > > "Euphoria is not an "object oriented" language, yet it achieves
> > > many of the benefits of these languages in a much simpler way."
Irv Mullins wrote:
<snip>
> I disagree, and the number of OOP libraries contributed seems to disagree.
> I don't think the writers of those libraries would say that Euphoria made
it
> possible to implement those features "in a much simpler way", either.
Diamond has a lot of detailed code because of the power features, but the
fundamental code is actually fairly simple to code and maintain. Where I pay
the cost is in speed. While Diamond compares well to Python or Ruby, it is
quite slow vs pure Eu.
Bach's OOP operations are blazingly fast (though Bach's OOP features are not
as powerful as Diamond's)--this shows the advantage of OOP support built
into the interpreter.
-- Mike Nelson
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
