Re: 2.6 feature request: foreach (off topic)
ags wrote:
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> > > I don't think that's a fair comparison. Quite often the reason for having
> > > a 2D array is if you want to access the array as a[x][y], if this is the
> > > case then you still need place-holders in Euphoria.
> > >
> > > But who is worried about memory these days, really? We're talking about a
> > > language used on 32-bit Windows and *nix. If we were talking embedded
> > > applications things might be a bit different, but as long as memory use
> > > isn't
> > > totally abused, you may as well use it; the OS will see to it that you
> > > don't run
> > > out of fast memory.
> >
> > LOL!!
>
> Um, I'm not sure what your point is there... but I'm just saying that all
> this "my language is faster/prettier/freeer than yours" stuff is a bit
> pointless. You use the right tool for the job, and often that doesn't equal
> speed or efficiency it equals getting the job done quickly and as error
> free as possible. For me Euphoria/win32lib fits the bill nicely for Windows
> apps, Perl or sh for scripting, and PHP or Perl for CGI.
>
> Gary
>
I believe that what Kat means is that she is often accessing multi-gigabyte
files and her work is often slowed down by using swap when the OS or process runs
out of physical RAM. Of course her problem would be exacerbated if she were
using another high-level language, but the fact that sequences of integers are at
least 4-times larger than strings of bytes (chars) bugs her to no end.
That and the lack of goto.
Did I get that right, Kat?
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
