OpenEuphoria

Re: What's holding Euphoria back ?

• Posted by Quality <quality at ANNEX.COM> Feb 15, 1999
• 474 views

Boehme, Gabriel <gboehme at MUSICLAND.COM> wrote:


>"Bown, John" <John.Bown at UK.ORIGIN-IT.COM> wrote:
>
>>It was suggested [ apologies to whoever as I don't have the original ]
>>that the name Euphoria is one of the problems, not sounding serious
>>enough.
>>
>>There is one, and only one, way to give Euphoria credibility in the
>>current world of computer science, rename version 2.1 to ...
>>
>>E++
>>
>><<hugely wide grin>>
>
><Gasp>!
>
>Actually, this is a really good idea. The anti-C crowd would have a fit, of
>course, but it's concise and spiffy-looking. "E++" also implies that it's
>more advanced than C++, which doesn't hurt, either.
>
>I wouldn't object to this at all.
>
>Gabriel Boehme

With all respect Gabriel this is a BAD idea for several reasons...

1. There already is a language called "E" so that's a dead end before we
start. We could call it "E32++v2.1" but I think not ...

2. The term "C++" is used to denote object oriented capabilities vs plain
old "C". While true OOP would be cool in Euphoria it just isn't there now so
the name would be misleading and disappoint people looking for something
more advanced than C++.

3. The C++ crowd looking for something more advanced would take one look at
the syntax and run screaming in terror... it is way to simple for their
tastes.

4. Even if all the above were not true it would only be a matter of time
before "E++" was superceded by a language called "F++". In fact, When I
program I sometimes use a some similar languages such as "F+++!", "D+++!",
and "S+++!". When I really have a difficult project I break out the
super-language...
"*&@% $*(& $^%$*( F+++$~% *(&^ 87 @ * (#&^) !!!!"

<grin>