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
>
Same here. I am not going to tell that story _again_!
>> ... 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.
>
gaming platform? WHAT?!? you know how hard it would be to do a 3-d game
in euphoria? (in a language, period) eww... I think it's more of a
low-end OS language. (gotta make one! Where's the dbf.ex code???)
>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.
>
there are more non-game apps. (to my knowledge, it's like 1:3
(games:non-games)
>-- David Cuny
>
- "LEVIATHAN"
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
