OpenEuphoria

Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at co?gar.?om> Apr 17, 2008
• 575 views

Bernie Ryan wrote:
> 
> Jeremy:
> 
>   If Python is so popular then why are you using Euphoria ?
> 
>   Python is written in C++ and it is bloated with a lot of overhead
> 
>   and it requires the user to understand C++ to create a new feature. 
> 
>   The reason there is no standard library in Euphoria is because
>  
>   what is important to one user is not always important to other users.
> 
>   If a user needs to accomplish something in Euphoria all the user has
> 
>   to do is write the code because it requires no extra ordinary knowledge.

Bernie,

I did not mean to imply that Python was at all better. I just said because of
it's standard library it has gained more popularity. I agree with you on python
and that's why I am using Euphoria. Now, I disagree with you on two things. 1st.
you say python is bloated. Yes, true, but you imply that adding a standard lib to
Euphoria would bloat it. If you do not want to use the functions provided in,
say, include/string.e, then you do not need to include it. 2nd. What is important
to one person is not to another. This is true, but there are a base set of
functions that are universally accepted as important. Almost all scripting and
rapid development languages I know of have the functions I mentioned. Again, if
you don't need them, you don't have to include them. However, take this into
consideration. You develop a function to split a string by spaces. It works,
great. However, now put that function into the public eye. John Doe sees that it
could be a tad faster by adding this one change and subtracting another. Great!
Your function now works the same, only faster. Now Jane Doe sees another
improvement.

This is what we get if we have a standardized library. We have 100 people
working on 1 function instead of 100 people working on their own versions of the
exact same function.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com