Re: Fair Criticism
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Aug 12, 2001
- 520 views
I agree with Derek. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Parnell" <ddparnell at bigpond.com> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> Subject: Re: Fair Criticism > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <gertie at ad-tek.net> > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 6:17 PM > 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. > > > > What's this Either/Or mentality about. Irv and myself are not talking about > having either structures or sequences, but having both instead. Sequences > are brilliant! They solve many programming issues and the only real reason > to stick with Euphoria. Structures also can solve real programming issues - > a DIFFERENT set of issues. No one is saying that we must use structures > instead of sequences. No one is trying to change the way you code Euphoria, > Kat. We are asking for choice though. If I only have a hammer, every problem > starts to look like a nail. > > As we all know, sequences can be used to emulate structures but this is > different to implementing structures. Are sequences the best way to have > fixed-size objects, with named references to elements and have those names > scoped to the type of object? > > With 2.3 nearing readiness, we should probably put this issue away until we > have absorbed the 2.3 impact to our programs. But I will be lobbying for > structures in future. > > --------- > Cheers > Derek. > > > > >