RE: Eu's poor design
> > > It is incredibly easy to do in Euphoria.
> > >
> > It is difficult to do iterative.
> > >
>
> I do not know what you mean by iterative in this context. I don't see
> how making trees could be easier than making them in Eu.
Iterative means by loops and not by using recursion.
>
>
> > > > Still nobody showed me how to do
> > > > seq[1][2][3] = some_func(seq[1][2][3])
> > > > easier in Eu. Still nobody showed me an elegant tables.e implementation
> > > > without pbr.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe you are letting your thinking be too much influenced by the
> > > languages you are used to. You don't have pbr, so you think, "My god,
> > > how in the world can I solve this problem in Euphoria?"
> > Oh boy, I know how to solve it in Euphoria. It is just that the solution
> >
> >
> > is neither elegant or efficient.
> >
>
> I don't think you know the best way to do it Euphoria, because you are
> forcing un-Euphorian concepts onto it.
Using loops is an un-Euphorian concept? Using pbr is an un-Euphorian
concept? I don't think so.
>
> >
> > > I am learning
> > > Haskell, but am used to Euphoria, so I have similar thoughts along the
> > > way. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with Haskell, however,
> > > which is even higher-level than Euphoria. It just means I need to
> > > adjust my thinking a bit.
> > >
> > > I suggest this for reading:
> > >
> > > http://www.haskell.org/complex/why_does_haskell_matter.html
> > >
> > > Scroll to the bottom and read the "Epilogue". It seems to me you are
> > > exhibiting this syndrome...
> > >
> > Thank you for analysing my psyche. (As I said earlier I know functional
> > programming. But Eu isn't functional (it has side-effects!).)
> >
>
> I didn't say it was functional (it does have a few functional elements,
> though).
Yeah, one or two.
> You missed the point.
No. As I said, Eu has side-effects. Pbr would not break Eu's concepts.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
