OpenEuphoria

RE: Routine_ID Is No Doubt My Solution...

• Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Apr 16, 2003
• 394 views

Derek:
Please see answer about in the middle of the text...
----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
Subject: 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 Derek, now I'm not passing variables a references (not possible in
current Euphoria), and I still think I need better tracing (this is so
because I am not doing commercial programming, some special kind of CPU
intensive programs).
Moreover, now you have
a = foo(b, c) and of course have 'a' updated.
Is it so big the difference with:
foo(a, b) where you can have 'a' and 'b' 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
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>