OpenEuphoria

Re: Fair Criticism

• Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Aug 12, 2001
• 486 views

Maybe I am an old fashioned programmer, but I feel at ease with Euphoria.
Its debugging facilities are only surpased by APL of all languages I know.
Not long ago I started to program in an OO language (Java). While many
people think this kind of language is "the future", I don't agree. I find
Java cumbersome, difficult to program and debug, really a pain in the neck.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Fair Criticism


>
> On 10 Aug 2001, at 18:17, Robert Craig wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I'd never even heard of it before, and I'm a language slut.  This
> > > suggests to me that the user community is very small, and when the
> > > author gets tired of it the language will die.
> >
> > The user community has been growing steadily for years.
> > This mailing list has gone from 250 to 360 in the past 6 months.
> > I started designing Euphoria 12 years ago, and I'm working on it
> > full-time. The source will soon be (mostly) available.
> >
> > > It's commercial and proprietary (it's cheap, but it still costs),
> > > which IMO are acceptable for applications but extraordinarily bad
ideas
> > > for basic infrastructure like a programming language.
> >
> > Microsoft seems to be doing pretty well peddling C++, Visual Basic,
> > various operating systems, and other "basic infrastructure".
> >
> > If a programmer can improve his productivity by 10%,
> > why on earth would he not spend $39, or even $3900 in doing so?
>
> Well, for some people who make $39 a month, $3900 would seem like a lot of
money,
> it sure seems like a lot to me.
>
> > > It's not object-oriented, and doesn't even have structs.  This is
> > > the real show-stopper.  Without this capability, it's going to be a
> > > nightmare to write code using complex data structures.
> >
> > My worst nightmares by far have occurred while programming
> > complex, dynamic, flexible data structures in C/C++, mallocing and
> > freeing every step of the way with tremendous opportunities
> > for hideous bugs. In Euphoria it's a breeze.
>
> I *much* prefer the Eu way of free-form structures. This leaves it up to
me what i want
> to put in "fields". In Pascal, i used a lot of variant fields, and was
constrained by the
> rule of only one variant and it had to be at the end of a pre-declared
fixed record. What
> would make arrays/records as complex as C++ or pascal, but far more
versatile, will
> be if/when Rob (or someone) adds the runtime var naming, like mirc.
>
> Kat
>
>
>
>
>