Re: crash_message
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
>Here's another anology. What if a song writer decides not to do 'this' nor
>'that' because some people out there might _not_ like it. You know how such
>songs sound like ? MTV.
>
>I don't think I need to explain the nonsense of the 'it can be
>abused' -argument any more.
>One down, triljoen more nonsense arguments to go ..
Ralf,
I can understand your desire to have a 'do anything' language.
The fact is, a number of languages exist which are clean,
powerful, and give the programmer total control, even in spite
of potential abuse of that control.
But Euphoria *isn't* one of those languages. That's the whole
point, one of the things that makes it unique. It embraces the
'it can be abused' viewpoint quite thoroughly. Consider:
- it doesn't have a 'goto'
- you have to declare elements before using them
- forward calls are made explicit and somewhat difficult
(especially considering routine_id can't look ahead)
- it uses "strong" typing
- you can't pass values to routines by reference
- variables are not given default values when declared
- it's interpreted (providing a solid safety check)
- there are no pointers
- for-loop index variables can't be altered
- as far as I can tell, there are no "context-sensitive"
elements
In light of all this, doesn't it make sense that an attempt is
made to stay with the paradigm? I mean, I like a lot of
languages that have 'gotos' or that let the programmer mess
things up royally in exchange for power, but it seems clear
that such things don't fit in with Euphoria. No offense Ralf,
but you seem to dislike all (or most) of the above positive
benefits of Euphoria. Why do you even use it?
I'm not suggesting that you stop; I just honestly don't
understand what you're gaining from the language...
Rod
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
