OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria vs. C and OOP

• Posted by don cole <doncole at pacbell.net> Jan 05, 2007
• 716 views

ChrisBurch2 wrote:
> 
> don cole wrote:
> > 
> > jacques deschênes wrote:
> > > 
> > > I agree with you Bill, Euphoria should stay euphoria, not becoming,
> > > c++,java or whatever of the same.
> > > 
> > > Your exemple is a good one, but the use of strings for commands would
> > > slow down the execution a bit. Global constants could be defined instead
> > > for
> > > commands.
> > > 
> > > Improvement to euphoria should stick to simple guidelines:
> > > - minimize typing effort
> > > - reduce name conflict (improvement to namespaces)
> > > - reduce scope of variables (related to namespaces)
> > > 
> > > My yesterday suggestions stick to those guidelines and I agree with Jason
> > > concerning an enum decleration because it would reduce typing in accessing
> > > sequence elements by defining constants.
> > > 
> > > regards,
> > > Jacques Deschênes
> > 
> > So you want to change:
> > 
> > }}}
<eucode>
> > 
> > sequence holiday
> > 
> > holiday="christmas" 
> > 
> > </eucode>
{{{

> > 
> > to
> > 
> > }}}
<eucode>
> > 
> > sequence holiday."christmas"
> > 
> > </eucode>
{{{

> > 
> > For the point of saving typing. Is this correct?
> > Would holiday be changed later by 
> > 
> > holiday="easter"
> >  Or would another period be needed.
> > 
> > holiday."easter"?
> > 
> > Don Cole
> 
> Hi Don
> 
> OOP is one of the most horriblest (?) and over hyped aspects of programming
> I've
> come across over the last few years - I struggled with Delphi for years until
> I came across Euphoria (no disrespect to Matt et al - I have the utmost
> respect for their grasp of Euphoria and OOP in order to implement it.)
> 
> Euphoria doesn't need it (IMHO)
> 
> The above example is relatively simple though (I hope!)
> 
> Holiday is an object
> 
> Holiday.text would be a property of that object, so you could say
> 
> Holiday.text = "Christmas"
> 
> and later
> 
> Holiday.text = "Easter"
> 
> Holiday could also have another property called date, so
> 
> Holiday.date = "25/12/2009"
> 
> Holiday could also have function associated with, so
> 
> Holiday.print - could print out all the other Holiday properties.
> 
> Also, each property could have another prperty associated with it
> 
> so
> 
> Holiday.date.print would print out the date
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Get a free copy of delphi from somehere if you want to experiment, but to
> my mind, I just got unnecessarily bogged down with classes and properties -
> Euphoria was like a dream in comparison. As far as I'm concerned, all the talk
> of
> properities and classes etc, and defining variables should all be add ons, 
> and not a requirement for using euphoria.
> 
> I'm not saying don't progress, just don't change the base.
> 
> Chris

Hello ChrisBurch2,

I would say that I agree that Euphoria is complicated and simple enough for my
 needs. I have never come across any requirements that Euphoria (as is) hasen't
 met. There are may aspects of Euphoria that I have experimented with but never
 really used. Such as multitasking. If someone wants to make a Delphi type library
 to go with Euphoria that is fine with me, although I would probebly never use it.
 I say keep Euphoria thev way it is, Simple. This was my main attraction to it.
 Adding libraies and wrappers for special needs such as 3D animation is fine. But
 leave the basic structure alone.
End of my 2 cents.


Don Cole