I feel like the thread has been hijacked by C-proponents and
anti-C-advocates. The questions that I asked myself hardly get any
attention. I read the archives, and found this fight been fought more than
once, which is why I kept to language neutral proposals (two of which can be
scrapped).
Another question came to mind when Extends were mentioned (I use Extends
liberally in my code). I can accept the explanation that Extends slow things
down because it's another function call (though I'm not seeing this
slowdown), but, if this is so, how much does it slow down?
Is every call to an Extends twice as slow as when you had typed that code?
Three times? Slower than that? How much?
Ae there major differences across platforms?
Ronald Vogelaar
http://www.rovosoft.com
----- Original Message -----
It's a slippery slope.
Each new construct doesn't make it harder to read for those in the know,
but it requires an extra thing to learn, and an extra form.
You add two forms for one thing. Then add two forms for another.
It all adds up.
With no limits to how far you go except that "small additions don't
matter", you are the proverbial frog in the cooking pot. From cold to hot
and you don't realise before it's too late.
To be honest, I'd rather see RB without C style syntax.
C *IS* harder to read, and I've been doing C almost as long as I've been
doing RB.
I think the biggest and main one we need, is .NextValue for pointers.
the rest can simply be optimised by the compiler.
i = i + 1 can be optimised to compile to i++ by the compiler.
One thing in computing, is that the more ways you have to do the same
thing, the harder it is to learn!!!
One way to do one thing, makes it much easier.
Look at perl. You have twenty ways of doing the same thing.
Perl isn't necessarily messy, though. But it allows for much worse code
by undiscplined coders. On the other hand it's pretty cool to code in for
disciplined coders.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
