Re: goto: it's conceded
David Cuny wrote:
>
> There's this odd idea that adding features to a language will cause it harm.
>
> Although this is just syntactic sugar, it's really, really useful. But I can't
> see this ever getting implemented in Euphoria, because the language purity
> police will argue that you can do the same thing without the 'else' clause.
>
> From my perspective, this need to keep Euphoria spartan creates a language
> which isn't any fun to use. When I'm looking to code a solution, I look for
> the tool that will allow me to get something done, not for the one that
> enforced the maximum amount of B&D pain.
>
> To choose not to implement a feature because someone *might* misuse it,
> reminds me of the definition of a Puritain as being someone that worries that
> somewhere, someone might be having fun.
>
> If the feature isn't going to do any damage to you, but will be truly useful
> for someone, how do you justify not implementing it?
>
I snipped here and there, but I just wanted to say, that was a great post!
> OK, back to lurking.
But why? Stay active 
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
