Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > the chaos of this and related threads.
> We love it!
> >
> > The type construct is not a suitable candidate for structured sequences.
> If we cannot morph types into what we need, then we need to rip them out of
> the language.
Types are useful. They just aren't used as often as they should be because they
lack enough value. The concept is also different than structures. While they are
similar, a type construct is eu's form of assertion used primarily for debugging.
We don't want to be able to turn off the member typechecking for structures.
> > The only way that it can be suitable is if a new syntax is introduced for
> > defining the structure members. The problem is in discerning private
> > variables used for the typecheck routine from the structure members.
> an "end enum" would do that nicely, much better than the while nextCh=','
> approach
> I was thinking of.
Euphoria has a definite lack of rules and exceptions. PLEASE let's keep it that
way. Exceptions beget exceptions.
I'm certainly not opposed to advancement, but it must be weighed very carefully
in my opinion. I think so many languages are failures precisely because they have
become duct-tape victims.
> >If Eu continues to stagnate at the expense of stubborn and unsubstantiated
> >opinions
> We have to rise above that. Advancement should not occur at the cost of free
> speech. We have to learn to ignore what we must in order to progress.
> Some of these concepts are profoundly difficult and it seems often beyond the
> ability of any one person to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, even
> theoretically.
> I feel I learn much from these discussions, chaos or not.
True, but it's not productive.
> > I also suggest that this discussion should turn it's focus on WHAT exactly
> > needs improvement first. Nevermind how.
> > Does eu need structured sequences? I say yes
> > Does eu need oop functionality? I say yes
> > Perhaps before even answering those questions we should ask ourselves what
> > is Eu's purpose? Other than the obvious "it's for programming", what kind
> > of programming and what kind of programmers?
> What drives me most at the moment is how to add oft-requested features "in the
> style of" the existing Eu.
I don't see how that has to do with the questions I posed :P
I know what ya mean though.
But thank you for bringing it up because that is very much what I was trying to
say we should not do. We need to approach this pragmatically, not emotionally (or
enthusiastically iow). We shouldn't implement something just because that is what
people want or don't want. We should do it because it would improve the Euphoria
language. Maybe that means Eu shouldn't be improved at all, if it already meets
it's M.O.
That's why we need to figure out what Eu is supposed to be, or what we want it
to be. Not what it should have or not have.
Chris Bensler
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
http://empire.iwireweb.com - Empire for Euphoria
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
