RE: Eu's poor design
Andreas Rumpf wrote:
<snip>
> > 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.
Now that's a very short sighted statement. Why would it not ?
Did you ever worked with Delphi 1.x ??
> It compiles faster than Rob's Eu to
> NATIVE optimized code!
It's also being developed by a team of dedicated programmers
(read: full time) that have worked on it for many years.
> 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.
You are really missing the point here. First of all, the IDE
is written mainly in pure Euphoria code. Second, there is only
one person working on it (although the project has shiftes
from one maintainer to another in the past I believe).
It has nothing to do wit assembler being impressive or not,
we are discussing Euphoria and that language IS impressive in
how much can be done with relatively little code.
> > 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!
Again you seem to have no idea what we where talking about here
in the first place. We where discussing the usability of Euphoria
in *real world* applications. The millions loc that I've written
are in commercial contract projects and in THAT respect your
arguments do not hold any ground.
<snip>
> > 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.
So you actually seem to agree with me at the same time that you say
I'm wrong. There ARE different languages ! And call-by-reference
is NOT in all of them.
> But, call
> by ref is essential. (At least as essential as for-loops!)
What is REALLY essential in a language to be able to write
programs in it ?? I would recommend you take a look at languages
like Brainfuck and Befunge; it might change your perspective at
least a little bit.
<snip>
> > 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 
So you never faced the issue where you are required to use a
specific language (that might not have c-b-r) for a contract
job where you MUST release the product within a certain timeframe,
no matter what.... This is a common situation in commercial
contract work. And it will show you that you can do the job without
call-by-reference (or goto for that matter).
> > 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.
But that has nothing to do with what I replied. The fact that
C has case-sensitiveness has noting to do with the ability of
the language to produce *ugly* code.
I'll leave it with this. You are a student and you obviously
need some real-world experience to season your beliefs a bit.
Wait until you are under a serious time constraint for delivering
a project to a big client (as in "one that can enforce your
liability") and you are required to code your way out of a
design problem. If your language does not have call-by-reference,
you will see that you still get the job done 
Hans Peter Willems
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
