RE: Eu's poor design
Andreas Rumpf wrote:
> eugtk at yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > --- Andreas Rumpf <pfropfen at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Lets face it, at its current state, Euphoria is
> > > rather useless for
> > > programming real applications, for several reasons:
> >
> > Clearly, it's been useless for you. I don't see your
> > name in
> > a search of the user-contributions page. There are
> > lots
> > of others there, however.
> >
> > Just one example: take a look at Judith's IDE. That,
> > with the Win32Lib, is easier to use, and more stable,
> > than my $100 copy of Delphi. I'd say that Delphi is
> > a real application - so I guess Judith's is also.
> Though I don't know Judith's IDE, I doubt it is better than Delphi.
> My Delphi works just fine (it is stable).
I do agree here that I wouldn't rank Judith's IDE in the same
reigns as Delphi.... yet. But it does show what can be done with
Euphoria and the win32lib and is therefor quite impresive tmo.
> > > It lacks:
> > > - Call by reference (the most important feature I
> > > want to add!):
> >
> > Last time this subject came up, I took a look (with
> > grep) thru the million or so lines of code I have
> > written in the past 20 years - in only half a dozen
> > places have I used call-by-reference. And in those,
> > only one would I call "essential" - meaning that
> > without it, the code would have been really ugly.
> I don't believe you. That would mean you have written
> millions of lines in Eu (because all the other languages
> have it). I doubt it.
Errmmm.... I must side with Irv here. I have written millions
of lines of code without the need for call-by-reference.
> > Would I like to have cbr? Sure.
> > Is it essential? No way.
> Of course it is. Why do the other languages have it?
So if other languages have certain things, then this automatically
means that it is essential ?? If so, all existing languages would
already have merged into one *all encompasing* language.
Well, THAT didn't happen so there must be a reason that certain
things are omitted in certain languages then. And I will tell you
the little secret right away: in most cases it is about
optimization. The major reason to leave certain things out is to
gain speed by doing it in a different way. Maybe you should read up
on the principle of Reduced Instruction Sets.
> > It ranks just above goto on my wish list (sorry, Kat)
> I agree that goto is usefull...
I won't go there... again 
> > As for case sensitivity -
> > What you learned in QBasic doesn't apply to the real
> > world. (Hint: there's a reason why those 'other'
> > languages are also case sensitive.)
> I don't know QBasic very well. I can program in C, Pascal, Ada,
> Euphoria, Java and in ML.
And how many real-world projects did you do or participate with
these languages ?
> (I study computer science.)
That explains a lot.
> I still prefer
> case insensitive languages. The world doesn't run out of identifiers.
I prefer languages that enforce certain rules for readability
and structured programming.
> > Besides, anyone who can't remember how he spelled a
> > variable is going to find the more complex programming
> > tasks even more frustrating.
> I know how I write my variables! But I don't know how YOU (if you wrote
> a library for me to use) wrote them!
There is a simple solution for that: Documentation !
Take a look at the recent discussion here about doc-generators..
... wait a minute, you mentione Java in your list of languages:
maybe you don't know what JavaDoc is 
Oh, and from another message: PITA means "Pain In The Ass".
Hans Peter Willems
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
