OpenEuphoria

Re: Re : Why Euphoria

• Posted by "Darth Maul, aka Matt" <Uglyfish87 at HOTMAIL.COM> Jun 17, 2000
• 627 views

Maybe. But Euphoria is still faster, and in most cases, simpler. Just look
at a language like C, C++, Perl, Java, sed, awk, assembly...Shall I go on?
Just a few drawbacks(listen closely, anybody named Robert Craig):

* func's and proc's need a 'byref' prefix to variable types that allows the
  subroutine to change the argument itself. Kinda like:
  procedure something(byref integer a, integer b, integer c)
      a=b+c
  end procedure

* Support to link to .OBJ, .LIB, and .QLB files.

* Ability to run Euphoria in threads, kinda like pthreads

* Pipe capability like Perl:
  sub gets { # Yes, I know this is stupid, having to make a gets() sub
    local(*FN)=$_[0];
    local($st)='';
    while (1) {
      $ch=getc(FN);
      if ($ch eq "\n" || eof(FN)) { last; }
      $st .= $ch;
    }
    return $st;
  }
  die "Can't pipe test.exe: $!\n" unless open(FOO,"test.exe|");
  while (!eof(FOO)) {
    print &gets(FOO);
  }
  close(FOO);

* A ! operator like in perl: !foo

* Some way to include files within code blocks

* A way to actively interface with a program in another language(sounds like
  a toughie)

* An eval() function.
  Example 1: eval("puts(1,\"Hi!\\n\")")
  Example 2: sum=eval("4+5")

  Which would require something like $!(last error returned from some func)
  or $@(last syntax error from eval) from perl.

* And last but not least, a built-in fill() procedure