OpenEuphoria

Re: Nested routines

• Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo?co?> May 28, 2008
• 609 views

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> 
> ken mortenson wrote:
> >  
> > Two questions.  Same answer.  Because less is more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > 
> 
> I agree! Less code I type the better.
> 
> > Imagine how effecient and less complicated your compiler becomes when you
> > remove all the unneccessary bells and whistles and just leave the pure and
> > clean, unadulterated core.  Bells and whistles are for libraries (which are
> > optional in a project) while the core should be a finely crafted tool.  It's
> > one of the main things that attracted me to the language in the first place.
> 
> Imagine how efficient and less complicated your code will be (which you have
> to maintain, not the compiler) if the compiler does it's job and provides the
> common constructs/functionality necessary for me to do my job (programming)
> easily! That's what I look for. If I wanted a bare minimum compiler I'd go
> with
> whitespace or something.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>

I prefer a bare minimum to a kitchen-sink approach.

It seems like we've gone from discussing and adding functionality that has been
requested and/or generally agreed upon by the community to just adding in any old
thing.

This beautiful, simple language is starting to suffer from some serious
uglification IMV.

--
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.