Re: Is Euphoria's beauty enduring or fleeting?
I think its funny -- I actually find Euphoria code to be aesthetically pleasing
whereas I don't find Pascal to be beautiful. They are similar, but Pascal is
just uglier for some reason I can't put my finger on. Maybe its the colons.
I think C code *can* be pretty but C++ and Perl are ugly. Java is so-so.
There's just something about all of those dots and colons. The same with other
languages. I think that Euphoria looks like you expect it to look.
Gordon Webster wrote:
> I would hate to see Euphoria, a superb tool for crafting computer
> programs, follow the same path through rigidity or a reluctance to evolve.
It always seems to me as if RDS target audience are those who are beginning
programmers. QBasic is mostly obsolete. Right now Euphoria is good for writing
small to intermediate programs and when people move on from that they go to C,
Java, or something else.
The problem is that QBasic and Euphoria are no longer alone in the small to
intermediate languages world. New programmers jump directly into Java or C/C++
when they don't start with Javascript, Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby, etc. These
languages aren't as good as Euphoria but they have more momentum and much larger
communities behind them.
To move forward, projects like win32lib and IDE would have to be polished up and
become a "part" of the language distribution, and they would have to consider
some changes in the language to enable better libraries to be written and easier
integration with C.
I think RDS is satisfied with the size of the language now and they are happy
with the niche that it fills. Euphoria as-is is good enough for 99% of things
that need to be done with it.
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
