OpenEuphoria

Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at ??hoo.com> May 29, 2008
• 682 views

CChris wrote:

> Frankly, your approach reminds me of Fortran (any flavour). 

Wow.  That's not a response I expected.  Although defining 5=6 in Fortran
did make for interesting debug sessions with friends.

> Its superiority in some specific areas of programming has survived programming
> concepts and hardware changes. Fortran compilers have been the first to
> introduce
> some advanced features like statistical reshuffling of code to optimise its
> speed, etc.
> 
> Great and granted.
 
> So you'd get the do i=1,n,step ... end loop, the arithmetic 3 way if and a few
> other minimalist thingies.

I believe you are confusing terse syntax with minimalism (you are free to
disagree, my opinions and assertions are just vibrations in the wind.)

> But if I found Fortran comfortable to program with, I'd use Fortran, nand I
> don't. I even downloaded OpenWatcom F77 compiler, just to try my hand. Good
> for stuff where speed is more importan than maintainability. But I'd say
> hardly
> better.
> 
> CChris

Chris, with all due respect (this is not presymbolic language folks, when I
say with respect it has profound meaning to me) I believe you've just set
up a straw man argument.

1) Only fools would program in FORTRAN these days.
2) Ken's ideas are just repackaged FORTRAN.
3) Ken is a fool.

Thanks for playing.

Am I being unfair in my assessment?