Re: Editors for Euphoria
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
>
>
> Actually, ed.ex has a number of the features you have listed above.
> Out of the box we're comparing apples and oranges. As has been noted
> many times before, ed.ex was intended as a simple demo. It is simple,
> but it packs a lot of bang for the buck... and
> my humble experience with euphoria and ed.ex has led me to believe
> that it would be much easier to implement further editing features in
> Euphoria than C/C+.
I've browsed through the docs of ed, either I am missing a HUGE section of it,
or eFTE is much more powerful. But, we are comparing apples to oranges.
> But, lets get to the heart of the matter...
>
> First things first... Is Euphoria a much more powerful language than
> C/C+?
What is power?
> What are Euphoria's limitations as far as a language in which to develop
> an editor with the features of eFTE?
eFTE could be written in Euphoria, C, C++, Assembler, Python, Ruby, Lisp,
Fortran, Forth, Basic and many other languages.
> Anwering these questions might reveal objectives to target in
> Euphoria's further development.
Why do I develop in Euphoria instead of C or C++ on a regular basis? Because in
Euphoria things are simpler. I can achieve the same task with less code. How much
less? I *highly* doubt you could take a 60k C/C++ program and condense it to 9k
of Euphoria code. I've done many studies on languages and if that were
achievable, there could only be 1 of two explanations. 1. Euphoria is a miracle
language like no other or 2. eFTE is so badly code bloated that it needs
rewritten from scratch anyway (which there is some truth to that).
Now, back to one of your original questions. Who wants to work through 60k of a
C program and rewrite it just for the sake of rewriting? I have too many things
to do already to rewrite a perfectly functioning editor.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
