RE: Eu's poor design
Peter Willems wrote:
>
>
> 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.
And it will never reach Delphi. It compiles faster than Rob's Eu to
NATIVE optimized code!
But it does show what can be done with
> Euphoria and the win32lib and is therefor quite impresive tmo.
Yeah, you can do at lot with peek()/poke() and calling C functions...
You can also do much more in assembler and asm is not really impressive.
>
> > > > 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.
Well, so I could say: I've written thousands of lines of code and I
didn't need any for-loops. While-loops always did the job. And I could
say "Gotos always did the job". That's no argument! Look at the library
(I think it was called "tables.e" or something like that) and how it was
a pain for the author to make the interface without cbr! (I still have
the code somewhere...)
> > > 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.
No, you're wrong. That sentence isn't logical. Some features are
essential, some not. That's why there are different languages. But, call
by ref is essential. (At least as essential as for-loops!)
> 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.
Hah! Call by ref would be much more efficient!
seq = some_func()
error = seq[1]
value = seq[2]
instead of: some_func(value, error)
The Eu interpreter will certainly not optimize this one! It is much to
difficult to implement in an optimizer!
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.
I know the principle of RISC. But Eu is a HIGH level language.
>
> > > 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 wrote two quite big (10.000 loc) projects in Pascal, I am writing an
Eu translator in C (4.000 loc), I was forced to do plenty of small tasks
with Java/ML (they really suck) at university. And I played a bit with
Ada 
>
> > (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.
Hah, look at C. It has case sensitiveness and does not lead to readable
code.
>
> > > 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
I know what JavaDoc is. You can always look something up, but you will
be lucky if you don't have to...
>
> Oh, and from another message: PITA means "Pain In The Ass".
>
> Hans Peter Willems
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
