Re: Changes to Euphoria
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> 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.
Jeremy, I think your a fair individual. You may be surprised to find that
I'm not really a minimimist either. I do appreciate some of it's concepts.
The truth is, I don't want to give up FOR loops either. I've been using
them faithfully since before GWBasic. 6 years before actually.
> 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.
Well, that's about the kindest boot in the ass I've ever gotten. Don't
worry, I don't lose sight of my goals. I'm not sure why I'm here, other
than community. Yes, I'd like my vision of the IDE and compiler to be
realized and I've fallen in love with sequences (which is a hard love,
APL requires a new keyboard.)
I have no delussions that Euphoria will somehow morph into my vision.
Sometimes you have to expose your ideas to the world to see the response.
I want to thank all those that have sent me letters of encouragement,
it was... nice, surprising and touching. I would not betray names, that
wouldn't be right. I have an out of style send of honor.
I will probably test the waters a bit longer. It would only be fair
that those with need have the opportunity of such new experiences.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
