Re: structures
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL> wrote:
>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.
I hate to waste any more bandwidth on this, so I'll merely respond to the
points you raised here that you didn't raise in the earlier post.
>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..)
Neither of our posts were "arguments". They were "cheap shots", designed to
make a point and stir up a strong *emotional* response. No "facts" were
"argued" at all.
>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.
Again, please read "Problems with structures", where C is only mentioned
once, at the end:
"Introducing structures into Euphoria would *not* turn it into C."
Which seems to agree with your point.
>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.
But sequences are RECURSIVE. Put a structure *inside* a generic sequence,
and how to you enforce the structure? By adding much extra overhead into the
Euphoria interpreter, which will lose speed. Plus, objects are *flexible* in
Euphoira, whereas they're not in other languages -- that's why other
languages *need* structures! Euphoria doesn't.
>Again, what does your question counter or say ? I mean.. what the hell is
>the use of it ?
A valid question for both our posts. We have succeeded in pitching the
debate on a lower level. Hooray for us.
>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.
Type checks are part of why Euphoria is so much better than all the other
languages. Variables are not restricted by *machine* types -- they can be
defined however the programmer wants to use them. This is both a benefit and
a responsibility. Instead of saying Euphoria needs structures, perhaps we
ought to approach Euphoria on its own terms, and be more careful and
selective in how and where we type-check.
As for defining constants for sequence index values, I completely agree with
you that this is annoying. I just don't think structures are the solution to
this problem.
>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)
Yes, I shouldn't have said that, and I apologize. I was tired and not
thinking clearly.
>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.
I'm sorry, but it's you who seems to be stuck in a rut regarding C. You
*assume* that any anti-structure argument is coming from an uninformed,
unknowledgeable anti-C position. That isn't the case. Structures don't fit
into the Euphoria way of doing things. Just because other languages have
them doesn't mean they're right for Euphoria.
>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.
The only reason C has *anything* to do with this discussion is because you
keep bringing it up. My response to your questionnaire did not mention C at
all. My other detailed and example-filled posts on the subject concentrate
on *structures*, and what their introduction would *really* do to Euphoria.
C is irrelevant to the discussion. On that, we agree.
>Inverted indeed....
>Charactistics my questionaire:
> - Make a point
>Charactistics your questionnaire:
> - Dont make a point
I hope you see the point now.
Gabriel Boehme
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
