Re: Changes to Euphoria
ken mortenson wrote:
>
> are reasonable either. This proposal is a modest one. How well it does
> will be a great indicator of how welcome more profound ideas of mine will
> be accepted.
Ken, I think the real debate is not how good or how bad your ideas are it is
does it fit into the purpose of Euphoria. I stated previously and was waiting for
a response ...
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Euphoria is not a
minimalist programming language. That should solve all of this debate?"
Euphoria is not a minimalist language but you are proposing that it be. The
people here do not want a minimalist language. They like Euphoria syntax. Be it
wrong or right in your eyes, that is Euphoria and that's why people are here
using it, because they like that.
I am not telling you to leave, even if I wanted to (which I do not), I have no
authority to do that. But I can suggest that if so far what you have outlined is
what you think the one true language is, you may be wasting your time here. I say
that to save you time, not to be mean or cruel.
Some of your suggestions about Euphoria may be right or wrong, but it would be
like suggesting to Python that they adopt Ruby syntax. The fact they are python
programmers is they like their syntax.
I'm just trying to figure out the root problem here. That's all.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
