Re: Ideas for next Eu

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:41:27 -0800, simulat <simulat at INTERGATE.BC.CA> wrote:

>But I don't need that sort of language for my work. I need a language that
>is fluid, gives me access to all the resources of my computer, and that has
>a minimum of programming overhead.
>

>This is not a trivial concern. In my practice, I find that it takes as much
>effort to debug the programming overhead as it does to debug the program
>logic.
>In fact, it takes quite a bit more; the hassles I get when I move functions
>from one library to another are entirely overhead problems, because the
>logic already works. I think that the effort spent in making the overhead
>work is a cost imposed on me by a flawed paradigm. The paradigm is to
>prevent logical errors by rigid programming practice enforced by the
>language. Maybe an entity like NASA needs to work with such a rigid
>paradigm, but I sure don't. It's just a bunch of stuff in the way.

As long as you limit yourself to programs less than a hundred lines and never
use any includes, your paradigm will work. Outside those bounds lurks absolute
disaster with everything defaulted to global. Every time you add a new variable,
you will have to make a run to see whether it will crash the program. What a
crock. Flexibility is wonderful, but as an old friend of mine once said, "Did you
ever try to sit in a flexible chair?" The word global isn't going to add one
extra line to your code, but it will document something that has "global"
effects. The flexibility of this language is in it's base design. Allowing things
such as you suggest will make every program a minefield. Their is an old aphorism
that says that things should be simple by design, not designed to be simple. A
language does not become flexible by allowing bad design and coding. Easy
extension to deal with new and changing environments makes a language or a
program flexible. In addition, a global-by-default memory model cannot be garbage
collected to any practical effect. Too much of memory is tied down by the global
variables long after it becomes disposable.

Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu