Re: Euphoria being OO Survey.
- Posted by fred at jordah.freeserve.co.uk May 14, 2003
- 672 views
You, should post this as a comment of the poll at logicsoft. Anyway, have u taken time to look at MFC source(headers)? Have u looked at java's Swing toolkit? compare them to win32 libraries we have in euphoria... I mean you create a WND Class, then you can create other controls by simply extending that class....how many Cross-platform libraries are coded using structural programming? how far have they gone? ----- Original Message ----- From: <mistertrik at hotmail.com> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:30 PM Subject: Re: Euphoria being OO Survey. > > Just to ignite some discussion on the list, I'll reply to this. :oP > > In short: > > No. > > In long: > > Not entirely. There is a simplicity in having code that is just code. It's > not instantiable, it's not a descendant of something, and it doesn't have > any extras hanging around that could slow it down. > Personally I loathe the way that Java works. Especially with the standard > function libraries. > > What I think Euphoria should have: > structures! > > This allows for "pseudo" object orientedness. If you want to have some data > in easily recogniseable chunks, an array of structures is the way to go. > It's easily recognisable as a discrete entity, and could run much faster > than complicated multidimensional arrays with constants declared to point to > certain objects in the array (What I have to do now :o(. ) With this last > basic data type, it would be complete euphoria's wonderful data system. > > I know that the freedom to dynamically mess with sequences in euphoria is > wonderful, but the flip side to that is the introduction of odd bugs that > came about because of a pair of oddly placed curlies (or lack thereof) in > the depths of an algorithm. I think that for people who WANT their data to > stay in fixed order - especially for the situations where you end up trying > to maintain it just as much as you are debugging the rest of your code -, > structures should be allowed. > > As far as I see it, you could even have the best of both worlds. Have your > dynamic sequences, with the ability to put anything anywhere, but also have > the ability to assign a structure to a member of that sequence. This would > in my mind make it far easier to implement a more object-friendly > environment, and simplify managing data that belongs in discrete groups. > > This of course, is just my opinion. I would love to hear debate from the > community about what their thoughts on this issue are, and how it > could/should/would be implemented. > > Alright, I've finished my rant. > ===================================================== > .______<-------------------\__ > / _____<--------------------__|=== > ||_ <-------------------/ > \__| Mr Trick > > > >From: fred at jordah.freeserve.co.uk > >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com > >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com> > >Subject: Euphoria being OO Survey. > >Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:46:38 +0100 > > > > > >Do you think euphoria for win32 would be better off if it were > >Object-Oriented? > > > >Please take a survey at > >http://logicsoft.pcplayground.com/modules.php?name=Surveys&pollID=2 > > > > > >TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! > > > > > > > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! > >