RE: The Euphorian Way
Parts snipped for space
> > I don't like OOP.
>
> OOP, if required, needlessly obfuscates what would otherwise be
> clean code. If you're developing a GUI, it's perfect. For an
> accounting program, it's no big deal.
>
But one of the primary dreams of OOP was to enable code re-use, no
matter if you're writing accounting, GUIs, games, simulations
(especially useful for simulations). I think the Eu includes work BETTER
in some ways for code re-use, but some things they just don't get at.
For example, I cut my simulation teeth on a traffic simulator in school,
written in something called SLAM-II. This was even before C++, back in
the 80s. But you could define an object ( a car or a redlight, for
example) that would have specific attributes. But you couldn't change
just one attribute ( e.g. make all lights have a minimum red of 1
minute) and have it filter to all lights. You had to change each one by
hand. Fine for the academic exercise, since we only had to simulate 3
lights. But for a real simulation, with maybe 100 or more, it would be
exhausting.
In C++, I can make that change. In Eu, AFAIK, I have to do it by hand
again, though I suspect there might be a way to avoid that if you're
clever.
> > Make it easier to use? For instance, in mirc, Icon, and Dialog, if you
> want a Windows
> > window to pop up and display something, it's a one-word command, like
> puts() is. You
> > can get fancier if you want. Same with networking, sending an email in
> Rebol takes
> > one line of code. Having all those things from the Turbo Pascal suite of
> tools that i
> > used in dos some 8 yrs ago would be nice too.
>
> Exactly. The lack of those things in Euphoria has always been
> cited as an 'advantage' - you can write anything you want, and
> add it on. It's turned out to be a disadvantage, instead. Not just
> anyone *can* write those things and add them on. Especially
> if we expect them to work.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
But that's exactly the sort of problems Python, Ruby, Rebol, etc. faced
if I'm not mistaken. Much of their funtionality is created by their
libraries also. The difference is they had enough very talented
programmers among their users to develop the tools they needed.
I know there are a lot of talented programmers using Eu. I don't know
why they aren't creating needed libraries, but I do think one reason is
the needed libraries haven't been clearly defined.
Or maybe better incentive is needed, though I don't believe it is. The
programmers who created the Python, Perl, Ruby, etc. modules didn't
receive ANY compensation to my knowledge.
There seems to be a cultural difference. Possibly one reason is that Eu
SEEMS to be targetted at amateurs, rather than professionals.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
