Re: Optional "then" and "do"
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Fernando Bauer wrote:
> >
> > Jason Gade wrote:
> > >
> > > I mean, we may as well write
> > > for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> > > /* do something */
> > > }
> > >
> > > Which certainly has its own elegance, but it isn't Euphoria.
> >
> > Agreed. But I'm sure that any Euphoria programmer would understand my
> > example.
> > The difference is minimal, just other characters (already used) for the same
> > token and the advantage is: less keywords to know and to parse. You could
> > call
> > it a Euphoria dialect. All things change and evolve, even if we don't want.
> > A computer language should also obey this natural principle. One form to
> > evolve
> > is creating mutations, which in this case is a dialect. Some modifications
> > in
> > Eu 4.0 are more profound than these ones.
> > Finally, your example uses a different syntax and semantics, and not every
> > Euphoria
> > programmer would understand it, so IMHO it's not a Euphoria dialect.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for your reply!
> > - Fernando
>
> Well, I can understand a lot of things, but some of these examples are
> jarring.
>
> One of the things that I like about Euphoria is that it accomplishes the
> relatively
> difficult goal of reading very similarly to natural English without being
> overly
> wordy. I think that it strikes a happy medium.
>
I certainly wouldn't agree with the latter.
See how much you have to write to share a state (as a sequence - no pointers)
between two functions. You can pass {x1,x2,x3}, fine.. But when the sequence
state is returned, you have to code
x1=state[1]
x2=sate[2]
etc
while {x1,x2,x3}=state is clear enough.
Just one example out of many.
CChris
> --
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
> system that works.
> --John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
>
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
> --C.A.R. Hoare
>
> j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
