Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> > Matt Lewis wrote:
> > > However, the way I've
> > > implemented OOP is very similar to your concept of SS
> > So basically OOEU fulfills your needs and you are uninterested in adding
> > SS or PBR to the language.
>
> I think what he's saying is that the functionality you desire is in OOEU,
> and if we can get consensus amongst Euphoria users, it would be relatively
> easy to add it to the primary Euphoria distribution.
>
Adding it sounds like a good idea to me, but it has nothing to do with the
SS proposal.
> > I was hoping that the introduction of open Eu might have allowed
> > some advances to what is (lets face it) a toy language.
>
> I strongly disagree. It's so advanced it's simple. :)
It is a simple, elegant and powerful toy. It does not provide a host of
features that are accepted as producing better programs. modules,
exceptions, namespaces, etc.etc. have been invented for a reason.
>
> > I make a suggestion for what I think is a powerful and simple feature (SS).
> > The only response is "You can do some of that with OOEU" - "XYZ's
> > package does some of that this way" etc. etc. I am starting to
> > understand that the translation of these responses is "Not Interested, but
> > heres something else to talk about".
> > OK, I'll stop.
>
> I think your interpretation is skewed... I think it's more of, "Okay, we've
> got this functionality in these packages, is it something you think would
> work?"
> I think it's important, also, to nail down the syntax, which hasn't been done.
> Many options have been suggested. Should we vote on it or what?
The syntax is all-important. The face shown by a feature to a large extent
determines whether better code can be produced. That is why trying out
with OOEU doesn't work. Not because OOEU is bad, but because it is different.
>
> > The other thing I notice is that RC is totally silent. Is he waiting for
> > unanimity? Will he bless any change at all?
>
> Rob?
>
> > Without his input, none of this means anything at all.
>
> I don't know if that's true. Let us get clarification: Rob, will any
> requested changes need approval from you, even if there's community
> consensus?
He has said that he would bow to consensus, but don't we all know that
consensus is impossible?
SS is proposed.
Not one response says:
"I'm for that"
or "I'm against any changes"
or "I want that but I hate the syntax"
or even "You're crazy"
instead every response is a change of subject.
"Have you seen xyz"
"Thats similar to abc"
Everyone simply wants his pet syntax added, or wants
no changes at all. (I choose not to dwell on my inclusion in 'everyone' 
)
Well heres the gauntlet.
My SS proposal is on the table.
Yes, No, only with changes, or yes but consider this syntax first?
The proposal is SS.
The proposal is NOT dot-notation, NOT named elements,
NOT namespaced ids, NOT a new syntax for user-defined datatypes.
It IS a combination of all those things in a coherent package.
For or Against?
KtB
KtB
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
