Re: structures (finished mail)
Oops... my last mail was sent immidiately because I see to have pressed some
weird short-cut key. Oh well, the same stuf.. but now finished.
------- re: structures
I was only using the multiple-choice-question-thingie to disprove arguments
such as 'c with sequences'. Since, in a discussion, you have a 'thing' you
either agree with or you dont. And to support that you use *arguments*.
After the first has used arguments, the other counters such arguments, until
it is impossible to do so... then you found the answer of the discussion,
which is the goal of a discussion. (yes: .. really.. it is.. its not to
attack any one.. or to eat your neightbourhs... its to find an
solution/answer..)
Now, lets look at your response in that light.
>What is most important in making a programming language?
>a) That its a good, practical language
>b) That its has structures.
Tell me, which argument are *you* disproving ?
That we want structures rather than a good practical language ?
Am I not claming that structures make it *more* practical ?
This was the question I asked: (or something simerlar)
>What is the most important in making a programming language ?
>a) That its a good, practical language
>b) That its the opposite of C
If you question is suppose to counter mine, should I assume you think a good
practical language is the opposite of C ?
If so.. I wonder why we even have variables.." C has them too..!!! Arg.. I
*hate* variables.. Do you want EUphoria to be C without pointers ?"
>Just because other languages have structures, does that automatically mean
>Euphoria should have them too?
>a) Yes
>b) No
...And this was my question...
>Are structures unique to C or were they added to C, because they were so
>helpfull in other languages ?
>a) True
>b) False
The point of my question (which you appearently totally missed.. oh well)
was that you were assuming structures to be a c-like thingie. Or at least,
you were immidiately associating C with structures. I havent heard any one
say 'Do we want basic with sequences ?'.
Now, precisely in which way does your question counter my argument on that ?
Unlike you, I never used the fact that many languages have structure as an
argument in this discussion, while you used the fact that C has structures
as an argument. Therefor my question countered your argument, while your
question didnt counter/unprove any of my arguments ..
A little secret you obviously didnt know:
I used those questions to make a point. (a point I made before, but was
ignored, which motivated me to make these questions since they are a
'little' more confronting). Your questions however, do not make any point,
or it could off course be me... if they are suppose to.. please explain
them.. I wanne see the light too, you know.
>Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to add
>structures to a language which cannot easily accommodate them, probably due
>to some love-affair with structures?
>a) Yes, that's the reason I want structures!
>b) No, I just make this statement about structures because here on the list
>almost everybody wants structures, and this way I'll be liked.
>c) No, I seriously think structures would be good for Euphoria.
Well, this one I can simply answer: C
(btw. As to you pun with answer B: The *recent* discussion (there have been
more just not by me) was started by me, without knowing the public opinion.)
However, again, lets compare:
>Do you have some sort of emotional disorder, which makes you want to
compare
>everything to C, problaly due to some tragic experience with C ?
>a) Yes, thats the reason I can't shut up about C!
>b) No, I just make this statement about C, because here on the list
>everybody is against C, and this way I'll be liked.
>c) No, I dont like structures on itself, and C has got nothing to do with
>it.
My question was meant to 'make fun' / 'confront' / 'find out' the real
reason why people are referring to the language C in this discussion,
althrough totally irrelevant. However, the 'C' answer I provided is for
_those_ against structures, using real arguments: they would claim C has got
nothing to do with it, while you and even Robert, used C in their arguments.
Your 'point' above is irreleveant, because I at all times, made clear I like
structures on itself, without referring to other languages. (unlike you).
Therefor, again, my question countered your argument, your question did not
counter the point I made with my question or any other argument i used /
point I made.
For your next question I couldnt find a matching question of mine.
It seems you've got yourself a little inspiration and made up your own
question:
>What are the basic types of variables in Euphoria?
>a) objects, sequences, atoms, integers
>b) two basic objects: sequences and atoms
>c) we need structures!!!
For your information, like I stated before ( a long time before, you might
not have been on the list at that time), only atoms. 'Integer' is merly a
type and a sequence itself is not data. Its a container for data. Therefor I
consider sequences to be a tool to arrange and manage data in the form of
atoms. Integers are restricted atoms, no matter which way they are dealt
with internally.
However, more relevant: I did state (in the ussue of structures), that I do
not want to add a new datatype/variable type to Euphoria. I just want an
alternative syntax that allows me to define the *structure* of a sequence,
and the accomodating type check function at once in an easier, better
readable and maintainable way.
Again, what does your question counter or say ? I mean.. what the hell is
the use of it ?
>Do you actually have some experience programming with structures in other
>languages, which you base your judgments about structures on? (incoherent
>ramble deleted)
>a) Yes
>b) No
This was my question:
>Do you actually have some experience programming C which you base your
>judgement about C on ? And do you consider C to be the same as a feature
99%
>of all languages have: structures or at least so much the same, such an
>argument in actually of _any_ (?) meaning in the discussion ?
>a) Yes
>b) No
The point I was making, was that most (read: most (read: most)) that hate C
and are constantly making comments about it... they never learned to program
in C. Those who do, have more experience, and know situations where they
would use C rather than Euphoria. This makes such an argument like 'C with
sequences' even weaker, since it would prove that C is not nessecarily a
totally useless tool.
Now about your question.. what is the point your making ? .. Yes I have
experience using structures. I have two experiences using structures. The
Original method, structures like provided in most programming languages and
I have experience with the Euphoric method. THe thing is, it annoys me alot:
that Euphoric method. I have to write a complex type check function,
declerations for a bunch of namespace eating 'constants'. (even within the
same include) and Im allowed to use those constants inappropiately. You know
what I call such an experience: a bad experience.
Now, lets get to the part of my question that you called incoherent and
ramble at the same time is:
(which you also cut out, and did not respond to)
>And do you consider C to be the same as a feature 99%
>of all languages have: structures or at least so much the same, such an
>argument in actually of _any_ (?) meaning in the discussion ?
Im assuming 'incoherent ramble' is your subtle way of saying you didnt get
it. Therefor I will clarify...
Im again referring to the argument of 'structures suck because C has them as
well' (however much more elegantly hidden in remarks like 'C with
sequences'). I 'unprove' this argument by saying many many more languages
have structures, and wether or not C is a good or bad programming language,
structures are not c-specific. Then I wondered, if you are thinking
structures are C-specific enough for your argument to have any usefull
contribution to this discussion.
That wondering resulted in the above question. After which the only way you
appeared to be able to deal with it was to call it ramble and 'incoherent'.
I must admit, a weird confusing sentence. But now Ive explained it...
..Now I explained it all.. now I explained my motivations, the point behind
my questions....
.. I explained the (my) goal of discussion, I explained it ALL.. it
ALL...now....
Now..
I dare you to find a real counter argument, or ask you to admit C has got
little to do with this discussion, and that its a mistake it was used as an
argument against structures.
Ralf N.
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
ralf_n at email.com
And a litte 'inverted' pun... 
>No, this is not a flame. This is an inverted version of a questionnaire
Ralf
>so generously provided us with. I hope *both* sides are clear on this now.
>:)
Inverted indeed....
Charactistics my questionaire:
- Make a point
Charactistics your questionnaire:
- Dont make a point
Ah well.. you're at least right about one thing.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
