Re: new Eu version, no built-in socks yet
Everett Williams writes:
> Also, three of those cost less than the registered version
> of Euphoria.
When you consider the labor-intensive nature of
programming, and the many hours that it demands,
I can't imagine many professional programmers,
or even novices, who would not be willing to pay
$39 (or $25) to improve their productivity by even a
few percent. Would any software company
switch to the second best tool for a project,
just to save $39? It costs them more than that *per hour*
for each programmer (especially with overhead costs
added in).
> the lack of a powerful string handling facility
What exactly, are you trying to do that can't be easily
done already with a few lines of code?
> All I am asking for is a recognition within the language of
> the intrinsic nature of strings, and some primitives that will
> speed it's handling.
Have you ever written a Euphoria program in which the
lack of speed of string operations was a problem?
I have used languages, such as APL and Basic where
strings and numbers are divided into two separate spaces,
and you must constantly convert back and forth between them.
When I started using C several years ago I realized that
this artificial separation is completely unnecessary and
counter-productive. I am very comfortable with the fact
that strings are not a special object in Euphoria, requiring
special built-in routines, and special conversion functions.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
