RE: New Euphoria features
D. Newhall wrote:
>
>
> posted by: D. Newhall <derek_newhall at yahoo.com>
>
> CChris wrote:
> > Why? It will be there when you need it, but are you learning all the
> > keywords
> > and constructs of a language at once ??? I wouldn't recommend that
> > anyway.
> Actually, that's exactly how I learned it. I read the reference manual
> all the way through at work. It's probably something that's peculiar to
> me but I learn programming languages by reading reference manuals
> instead of tutorials. I tried reading "Learning Perl" but never finished
> it and read "Programming Perl" instead.
That's your call, of course. Personally, I like to consider several
layers of sophistication in a language. Do simple things first using not
too many constructs; then look up the reference manual if you want to do
something fancier/more efficient. Unfornately, Eu stopped at the first
stage.
>
> > Hey, Euphoria lacks modularity because it lacks objects (in the OOP
> > sense)
> > and correct namespace system. When you look at the kind of obfuscated
> > code
> > you need to get them, I wonder how can this language claim to be
> > "clean".
> Euphoria has perfectly fine modularity (except for maybe a few scope
> issues). That's one of the reasons I stil use Euphoria. It's easier to
> do modular programming than in most other languages and you don't need
> to make a class for everything like in OO languages. Also, modular
> procedural programming (Euphoria, Modula-2, Ada 83, etc.) is a LOT
> easier to teach to new programmers than object oriented programming
> (like Java, SmallTalk, Eiffel, etc.) because you don't need to deal with
> inheritance, polymorphism, and all that other stuff that's good for OOP
> but just gets in the way if you just want to parse some text.
The "few scope issues" are very serious, real problems AFAIC.
I'm not advocating making Eu a fully OOP language, for the very reasons
you're stating, and with which I mostly agree. But one should be able to
use OOP in Eu whenever it suits him/her. Libs like Diamond tremendously
help, but do you think their use is easier to teach than the standard
OOP paradigms if they were natively supported by Eu? At the very least,
the libs require more typing, if only because the dot syntax is not
available.
CChris
>
> > Pointers are supposed to be unsafe, hard to debug etc. I don't fully
> > agree
> > with that view.
> > However, some solution to the problem you state is needed. Creating
> > aliases
> > for things, like in:
> >
> > ref current_task running_tasks[priority][task_id][TASK_NAME]
> > --do some stuff, using "current_task" as a macro
> > deref current_task
> >
> > may enable one to have it both ways.
> Yes, pointers are unsafe but if they were carefully designed and
> implemented they'd make many tasks a lot simpler. At the very least I'd
> like a way to get a reference to a variable (ala something like
> variable_id()) since it'd make OO programming a lot easier without
> imposing OOP on the programmer or allowing the programmer to use
> pointers.
PS; Thanks Rob for the wordwrap !
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
