Re: Rob?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > Robert Craig wrote:
> > > 1. Show me an actual example where you or someone else has
> > > run into this "problem" in real life. Explain why in the first
> > > decade of Euphoria, *no one* ever reported this "problem".
> > > Explain why I should delay 100 other important features and bug
> > > fixes, that people actually want, to address this possible "problem".
> > >
> > > 2. Give me a simple, totally reliable solution, coded in Euphoria,
> > > that works on all platforms, with no ill side effects and does
> > > not add *180* lines of code to the scanner. You say you will
> > > do the long-term maintenance, but you've "quit" Euphoria twice
> > > in just the past year.
> > >
> > > 3. Give me something I can write in the Euphoria language definition
> > > that does not read "if you change the size of a comment in a
> > > source file by one byte, your program's behavior could
> > > change drastically".
> > >
> > > 4. It is bad netiquette to quote private e-mails on public
> > > forums without the other party's permission. It does not
> > > encourage the other party to exchange private e-mails with you
> > > in the future.
> >
> >
> > So now that I've answered all those for you, you're just going to ignore me?
> > That isn't very fair. I think I deserve a reply. If I was in your position I
> > certainly wouldn't ignore a paying customer.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vincent
> >
> > P.S: What ever happened to the customer always being right?
>
> I think you're getting a bit paranoid.
> I'm not ignoring you. It's just that I sometimes
> have to leave my computer to sleep, eat, or go out and buy food. 
> I also have to serve many other customers. Customers who
> disagree with you. Can all customers be right?
>
> I'm also working hard on the multitasking feature, which I've now
> completed except for packaging the files and uploading them.
> Both the interpreter and translator now work fine with multitasking
> on DOS (both Watcom and DJGPP), Windows (Watcom, Borland, Lcc),
> Linux and FreeBSD. I also have example programs that use multitasking
> on all platforms. I'm building the Linux executables on a newer
> version of Linux, so maybe some things will work better
> for some people.
WooHoo! Looking forward to this.
> I'll grant you that you've answered 1 and 4, (though
> the only person you referred to in 1 found a workaround,
> and is "not demanding" a change to the language).
> However I don't think you've provided a solution that
> answers both 2 & 3.
2. Just compare the include string. If it is the same, then it is the same file.
If it is not (different path) then it is not. Whether or not the file is the
same, if global symbols conflict then it is an error and the include either needs
to be namespaced or fixed. Local symbols are still unique.
Again, this is just aesthetics on my part and definitely not extensive
experience in programming language design. It seems to be pretty easy to change.
3. Deprecated by #2 above.
> You've also mentioned that your 180-line solution
> adds 10% to load time. I find this hard to believe,
> but if it's true, I can't believe that you would want that.
> You've been complaining with great passion about the
> load time issue, but now you're willing to throw 10%
> out the window, as long as the time is spent in your
> code handling a possible problem that does not affect
> 99% of all programs?
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
So, when can I start bugging you to support mingw (basically a Windows version
of gcc) and let routine_id to have forward referencing?
PS Seriously, you support DJGPP and gcc already, how hard would it be to support
mingw? It's just another flavor. Maybe drop lcc? I know it's hard to support many
different compilers but I'm not sure how different mingw is from gcc. I'm sure
there are differences between it and DJGPP.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
