Re: Euphoria Interpreter design
Ralf writes (regarding "define-it-before-you-use-it")
> He doesnt have to proof it is bad. He (or any one else, persons
> should not be association to opinions in a discussion) has
> to prove that there is at least *one* case, where not linear order
> would be slightly better, and it is proven we're better without
> than with the restriction.
I hate to sound like a lawyer Ralf, but I think the burden of proof
is much higher than what you propose.
I'm *sure* there are many cases where some programmer-defined
order will be "better". The point is that Euphoria's
define-it-before-you-use-it order is *machine-verified*.
A arbitrary order invented for each program by an artistic
programmer is *not* verifiable, and therefore can't be trusted
to have any consistency, by others, or (eventually) even by
the programmer himself.
Knowing that define-it-before-you-use-it is *enforced* for all
Euphoria programs, makes it easier to understand and maintain
other people's code, and probably your own as well.
The routine_id mechanism lets you call things that come later,
but you can clearly see in the code that a special call
(call_proc, call_func) is being made, so you are alerted to
what is going on. A user-defined symbol can never appear
in the source code before it is declared.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
