Re: 2.6 feature request: foreach
Robert Craig wrote:
[snip]
> These issues made me think the feature was not
> such a good thing to add to a language that is supposed to
> be simple.
And thus the requirement for a 'better' language than this too-simple one. A
language suitable for coders that are more sophisticated than RDS aims its
marketing at.
Life is too short to ask RDS for anything that helps Euphoria break into
communities that are able to cope with, and utilize, a language that is degree or
two more 'complex' than RDS's programming beliefs.
In short, don't bother asking RDS for enhancements, because how can Euphoria
improve? - its already perfectly simple.
As Albert Einstein has reportedly said ...
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a
touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
In my opinion, Euphoria is *too* simplistic rather than too simple, and I
believe that RDS only expects simple coders to use it.
When I started using Euphoria, I was amazed at its versatility and ease of use.
However, it didn't take long to find out that once one starts coding
commercial-quality applications, Euphoria's "simplicity" ensured that the
application code became complex, and thus difficult to read and maintain.
I know that lots of people can show me large Euphoria programs that they say are
well written and easy to maintain, especially when compared with other languages,
and I'd tend to agree with that comparision. However, I find it hard to believe
that with a better Euphoria, that those programs could not be made even cheaper
to maintain and write.
Once again, RDS drives me to frustration! I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.
I'll now go back into semi-retirement again 
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
irc://irc.sorcery.net:9000/euphoria
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
