OpenEuphoria

Re: Those of us who are C'ly challenged :>

• Posted by Nate Brooman <nateb at LOG.ON.CA> Jul 16, 1998
• 632 views

Well, one reason Euphoria/Win32 is so weakly developed is because Eu32
f***ks up the screen.

One main reason why I think that C is better then Eu is that you can declare
stuff below the initial procedure. I.E.:

int main()
{
printf("Hello\n");
goaway();
}

goaway()
{
printf("\nGo away now!\n");
}

and it's bound to work. But I get errors in Eu by typing:

procedure hello()

  clear_screen()
  puts(1,"Hello!\n")
  goaway()
end procedure

procedure goaway()

  puts(1,"\nGo away now!\n")

end procedure

You know why it does this David? I can structurize Eu, but not like the
previous example (why is this Rob?)

- Nate Brooman
[nateb at log.on.ca]

-----Original Message-----
From: Cuny, David <David.Cuny at DSS.CA.GOV>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: July 16, 1998 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Those of us who are C'ly challenged :>


>Nate Brooman wrote:
>
>> I've NEVER found Euphoria to be easier than C!
>
>I, on the other hand, find it infinitely easier than C - primarily for
>the same reason many find Java superior as well:
>
>   - No pointers
>   - Strings
>   - Automatic garbage collection
>
>> ... Euphoria wasn't designed to be structured
>
>By any definition I can think of, Euphoria is a *highly* structured
>language.
>
>> Euphoria is more of a gaming language than anything.
>
>I disagree. I think that the "gaming" feature shows off just how fast
>Euphoria can be. One of the reasons you see so much gaming stuff written
>is the nature of the platform: DOS coders tend to write games.
>
>I suspect that the main reason you don't see as much Win32 code is
>because the library support is rather weak. As better tools become
>available, I think you'll see more non-game applications being
>developed.
>
>-- David Cuny
>