Re: 2.6 feature request: foreach (off topic)
Vincent wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> Vincent wrote:
>>
>>> Juergen Luethje wrote:
<snip>
>> So how would the following code look in PureBasic, using a linked list?
>> }}}
<eucode>
>> ListItem[x+3] *= 7
>> </eucode>
{{{
>
> I didnt make a good Euphoria example program for ListItem[x+3] *= 7
> so I did ListItem[x+3] += 7 instead. :P
[Example code for linked lists snipped]
Thanks for your efforts writing that code for comparison.
> Now that may looks a bit large, but you have to remember that sequences
> are a luxury only found in Euphoria,
Yep, that's the point we were talking about. So we seem to be in
complete agreement here.
<snip>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "regular expressions",
>>
>> A Regular Expression is a special text string for describing a search
>> pattern, see e.g. <http://www.amk.ca/python/howto/regex/>.
>>
>
> There is a "string" library to perform various operations with strings.
> I'm not sure if there is a core library that offers exactly that. But I
> found there three Regular Expression libraries that users have made.
There are also Regular Expression libraries on the Euphoria
user contributions page, but that was not the question here.
<snip>
>>>> Did you ever look at PowerBASIC? I believe it's more powerful than
>>>> PurBASIC, so it might be useful for you. But it's also more expensive,
>>>> and I don't know whether they have already done a Linux version.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More Powerful? LMAO!
>>> I bet you agree Euphoria is "More powerful than C++" don't you?
>>
>> If this should be a joke, I didn't understand it.
>
> I dont know is it? http://www.rapideuphoria.com/ban_eu.gif
> Ask Robert Craig. I'm sure it's one of his silly marketing schemes.
It is you who was laughing prematurely, so I asked you where the joke is.
BTW: I don't know anything about C++, so I can't (and don't want to)
discuss about it.
> The fact that PureBASIC supports inline ASM, gives you the potential
> for complete control. Euphoria has an assembler library written by Mic,
> and one by Pete Eberlein. PowerBASIC, HotBASIC, XBasic, probably
> supports inline ASM too. If you ask me, they all have the potential for
> being "powerful".
>
>>
>>> It is alot more expensive,
>>
>> You might have noticed that I wrote that myself in my previous post.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> I just wanted to tell you about POwerBASIC in case you didn't know it.
>> I'm sorry if you (or someone else) had the impression that I wanted to
>> make advertisement for PowertBASIC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>
> May I ask why would you consented to blow off so much money? You could
> of just bought Visual Basic from Microslop. Heh
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Please read again the
paragraph above between the ++++++ lines. What is unclear there???
<snip>
> To me PureBASIC is ultra fast,
Maybe it's ultra fast. I couldn't test it, because the programs produced
by the demo version don't run at full speed.
> elegent, fairly simple,
Obviously there are different meanings of these terms in your and my
dictionary. Your code with the linked lists is a good example for what
I do *not* consider elegent or fairly simple.
> and "powerful".
Quoting from a recent post by Rob:
| "Once an array is 'sized' it can be resized
| but its content will be deleted"
| (ouch!)
|
| "Arrays are always globally accessable in PureBasic."
| (no way to restrict access by scope!)
That is both from the Middle Ages of the development of BASIC flavours.
> Just like Euphoria is, but has the missing pieces.
Please don't get me wrong: It's completely OK for me, when you like
PureBASIC more than Euphoria.
But reading all the things that you are claiming here concerning
PureBASIC, it seems to me that you see it through rose-tinted spectacles.
Regards,
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
