Re: Parallel Eu's and all that
Caballero Rojo wrote:
>Hello all,
> I think that we should be happy with eu4 as it is. Why don't you
> make libraries instead of changing all the language? I think we are
> thinking to fast and we want to make something impossible. Just think
> making libraries, not to change all language or making a parallel
> one, I don't agree in this. If we do a parallel eu4 it's going to be
> a kind of C, that there are so many compilers that we don't know
> which we should use.
> Just think instead of talk.
>
>Like I always say "this is what I think".
If the items under discussion could be accomplished, in a library( and a
few of them could) then I agree with you. However, the goto, namespace,
and data structure items cannot efficiently be accomplished in libraries.
Thus the need to advocate their inclusion in the base. If you are
referring to my comment of using the Eu written in Eu as a prototyping
language, I don't believe that it is any threat to fork Eu. In the more
complex items like those mentioned above, it will be so inefficient as to
be unusable for anything but proof of concept purposes...and that is all
I want it for.
By the way, from what I can "see", standard C is quite compatible across
more environments than it has a right to be. As in any language, programs
written to depend on environmental peculiarities will not translate easily,
no matter the compatibility between versions of the language. I would
love to see Euphoria standardized sufficiently to create competitive
interpreters/compilers in this and other environments. That is not likely,
but the thought is not entirely negative.
Besides, if you are not interested in these threads, it is quite easy to skip
them as they are quite well marked. I read all, but am little interested in
specific coding discussions except on a passive basis.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
