OpenEuphoria

Re: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 10, 2004
• 595 views

Tone Škoda wrote:
> 
> 
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> > > The presence of a language contruct in a programming language does not
> > > necessarily encourage its use. For example, I am not, or have ever been,
> > > encouraged to write DOS graphics programs in Euphoria.
> 
> if there exists two or more ways to do the same thing, be it in language or
> library
> (C++ is typical example, createForm() in win32lib another), it (for me)
> greatly complicates
> that language or library. here's why: many times it is hard to decide which
> method
> to use. you have to know what are differences between those two methods, and
> so you
> have to know details of both methods to know their differences. and i dont
> like language
> or library where you have to remember a lot of things, or if you do it one way
> it might
> not be the best way.
> 
> in this area is euphoria very good.
> 
> 
> analogy with dos graphics is not very good. dos graphics does specific job and
> no other
> thing does that job. goto and elsif do basically the same thing, or can do the
> same
> thing.
> 
> this is why structures could complicate eu. :/

Okay. I can understand your opinion. I guess that you, and a number of
other Euphoria coders here, will not like my programming language when
I finish developing it. And that's fine too.

I'm not trying to have GOTO added to Euphoria. I simply don't care if it's
in the language or not. I will never use it. And if someone writes a
program that contains GOTO then I will work out if I can be bothered
reading it. If I can be bothered, I will read it, otherwise I won't 
read it.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia