Re: WISHLIST.TXT
Hello Jason (and everyone else),
I'd just like to add my general support to Jason's standpoint. The reason
I like Euphoria so much is that it is _very_ stable and while any language
does need to evolve I appreciate the way RDS has a very controlled approach
to change. I'd rather wait for the right changes than go on a roller
coaster of more frequent experimental changes.
Coming from a computer systems administration background I tend to follow
the "if it isn't broken then don't try and fix it" mentality. Now I know
you can only take that so far but my personal take is that I'm not the sort
of person who likes coding up stuff in the latest "bleeding edge"
technology. Give me something stable, proven and well documented and I'm
away.
I found Euphoria two years ago because I was looking for a language that
would run on DOS/Windows and Linux, had built in support for recursive
directory manipulation (walk_dir()) and when on DOS would allow direct
calls to the BIOS (dos_interrupt()). I'm sure that other languages fit
this bill (and maybe more so than Euphoria) but I found Euphoria did the
job and more. The fact that it is very well documented and easy to pick us
was bonus. The biggest bonus of course was the Eu community via this email
list.
Now IMHO the main reason Euphoria is so stable is because RDS obviously
puts each release through rigorous testing. This takes time - a lot of it
when you do it properly. Frequent new releases would mean less testing
than normal and this will lead to "less than best" testing and hence buggy
releases. I'd rather wait a year for a well tested release (2.3 an
excellent example) than have my old code break on buggy releases.
All this said I have some "wishes" myself. An unlink() function to delete
files for one and #ifdef, #endif style preprocessor directives to aid
platform independant code but I know I'll be waiting a good long while.
But that isn't a problem because for now I can code around it. An unlink()
function with appropriate calls to platform() is easy and #ifdef, #endif
can be achieved if I write my own preprocessor.
In summary change is good for some and stability is good for others (maybe
both). I guess if I don't like changes in a new version of Euphoria then
nothing would stop me declining and upgrade and staying with 2.3. Somehow
though I don't think RDS will have me making such a dramatic decision.
Everybody's milage varies - almost constantly infact 
Regards,
Andy Cranston.
At 19:03 22/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hey,
>I like Euphoria the way it is,and I know you do too,so please don't
>get me wrong,but let me tell you why I am kind of resistant to MAJOR
>changes to the language.
>1.Pointers.Though I understand them,I am the type of person who has
>enough trouble with the direct approach,let alone the indirect one,One
>of the reasons I stopped using C was because of their complexity.
>2.Loops.I have found that the while,if,for loops work for anything
>I need,and quickly too.
>
>3.The reason why I like Euphoria is because its small,fast and I can
>keep track of it.It helps me focus on my program not programming.
>4.As far as portability is concerned,we got windows,linux and now
>freebsd.Lets let the rest of the world become compatible with us
>and not vice-versa
>5.Their are some real smart people programming with it--somebody is
>going to make a game or some other popular graphics program with it
>(hopefully me) and the language will take off--guaranteed.
>6.Low price,I like that,and I don't think Robert should release his
>source code(another subject)
>7.That darn interpreter is reliable.Adding all kinds of new complexity
>could jeopardize the stability of the thing,that wouldn't be good.
>8.I'm sorry if I'm not seeing the whole picture,I really am. But
>from my standpoint I'd like to see as little change in it as possible,
>because change means that you have to adapt to more.If I ever need
>more from a language I'll find a new one,its a no brainer for me.
>There are many features I'd like to see implemented,I'd like to just
>type "Write my Program" and have it done. As in all things in life
>there is what we want\need and what actually exists,our challenge is
>to line up what we need to what actually exists.
> Once again I apologize if my opinion offends,but I think you can
>see that this is just one man's opinion. Maybe I'm wrong--probably am,
>but best of luck to you,regardless,
> Jason
>
>
>>From: christian.cuvier at education.gouv.fr
>>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>>Subject: WISHLIST.TXT
>>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:54:12 +0200
>>
>>
>>Hello, dear EUfolks !
>>
>>Here is a wish list in which I compiled everything I could think as an
>>useful enhancement for Euphoria (exchanged some mails with R. Craig on
>>this).
>>
>>By the way, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a "Plans for the future"
>>page on the website stating:
>>-what is definitely not planned as an evolution for Euphoria;
>>-what is definitely planned, possibly with a timetable ("by 12/06/02", "not
>>before 2008", whatever...)
>>- what remains in a gray area in vetween.
>>
>>This could be useful for people who spend time to build preprocessors, for
>>instance...
>>
>>Hope to submit a regular expression library next week. It is significantly
>>richer than P. Hazel's, and noncompliance with Perl standard is minimal if
>>not nil (didn't check all the specs). Its philosophy is based on C.
>>Schank's BE text editor regexp handling (very good DOS shareware, now
>>unsupported I think; registering was just for tech support and direct
>>upgrades).
>>
>>Have a nice day !
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
