Re: Routine_ID Is No Doubt My Solution...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:13:28 -0300, <rforno at tutopia.com> wrote:
>
> Derek:
> I can assure you that "Horses for Courses" is neither used in Argentina,
> not
> even in English-speaking circles;)
Must be an Australianism - ain't diversity a wonderful thing.
> Regarding the subject of programming in different languages, I in a
> certain
> way agree with Mr. C. K. Lester. I think that every programming language
> has
> its pros and cons, and you have to adapt you programming style to each
> language you program in.
Yes, every language (human and programming) has pros and cons. However, I
refuse to believe that anything is "as good as at can get". Euphoria can be
better than the current 'cons'.
> Particularly, I find Euphoria very manageable and
> akin to my programming style.
That's fine then.
> I think the its weak spots lie in the trace and debugging facility, even
> its being better than most other languages.
Of course, if some other area were 'improved' there would be less need for
tracing and debugging.
> I will welcome facilities to:
> 1) See expressions, not only variables, during trace.
Yes please.
> 2) Show only variables (expressions) that one selects, and not
> automatically
> selected ones.
Yes please (as an option).
> 3) Allow changing variable values, and perhaps executing routines while
> in
> trace.
Yes please.
> 4) Save the status of the program in order to continue execution later.
Hmmm. Never really needed to do this.
> In addition, I would like to be able to execute strings read or created
> during program execution,
This would require a complete rewrite of the RDS interpreter as its
internal architecture prevents it doing this.
> and I'd prefer passing all parameters as
> references, excepting constants and expressions.
Now I can see why you want better tracing and debugging features - you need
them when passing by reference. Too many opportunitites for things to get
'accidently' updated. 
> But as it is today, Euphoria is a very, very useful language (at least
> for the tasks I am using it for).
This is the meaning of 'horses for courses'. One uses Euphoria for the
purposes it is best suited to, just like one uses the right sort of horse
for the specific course to be raced over.
> I only had to resort to C for a large program,
> CPU intensive, for speed reasons.
Yes, C is a lot closer to the metal; the next level down is machine
language (assembler). I've heard it said that 'C' is really the PDP-11's
high-level assembler.
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
