Re: Euphoria v. (not C)
Alan wrote:
>I posted a message in a CompuServe forum in the C section suggesting =
that
>people try Euphoria (which was uploaded to that forum by Robert Criag's
>Compuserve User ID number). I kept the editorializing short as =
possible,
>most of it was C.DOC, Euphoria's propaganda pitch to C programmers.
>
>Someone wrote back:
>
>Alan,
>
>So what does it have that Perl or Java or Python or Tcl doesn't have?
>
>John
Hmmm. That's a tough one. On that particular forum, I suspect that =
Euphoria loses against most of the languages. All the languages =
mentioned run on several platforms (DOS, Win32, Un*x). They all have =
tons of documentation, and a lot of support. Most have cross-platform =
capabilities, and GUI support. All of them are considered "industrial =
strength". All of the languages have a strong backing of "university" =
coders, since most come from a C/Unix heritage.
This is in contrast to Euphoria, which only runs of the PC, has no =
documentation you could buy "off the shelf", currently has little GUI =
support, and no backing from Berkeley that I know of.
[Perl]
Perl is a specialized pattern matching language, like Awk. I don't know =
that I'd use it for general programming.
[Tcl/TK]
Tcl's strength is TK. Tcl is basically a 'glue' language, letting you =
easily add functions to a macro language. TK makes it easy to add a GUI =
front end. The syntax is logical - and horrible.
[Python]
Python is the successor to ABC - a language I finally abandoned before =
coming back to Euphoria. Python presents some pretty innovative ideas. =
For example, it also uses sequences, so you can write stuff like:
{x,y} =3D position()
which I only *wish* we could do in Euphoria. It also uses indentation =
for program structures, so you would write something like this:
for i =3D 1 to length( s ) do
puts( 1, s & "\n" )
No need for an "end for". It's also interpreted.
But it's got a lot of DLL's that it needs, and the environment isn't as =
friendly.
[Java]
Java is to C++ what Euphoria is to C. It gets rid of pointers, makes =
strings first class citizens, and interprets the code rather than =
compiling it. But like C++, it carries with it the bloat of a large =
class library.
[Conclusion]
I don't know that I'd get involved in a language war. I'd say that, =
similar to Java, Euphoria presents a "more rational" way of coding C - =
no pointers, interpreted code, automatic garbage collection, sequences, =
and a great debugger. It's a very comfortable language for coding small =
to medium applications that might have otherwise been coded in C. And =
the resulting code can be distributed as a fairly small EXE, without =
needing any special DLLs.
If someone was considering coding a DOS project in C, I'd suggest =
Euphoria as an alternative.
-- David Cuny
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
