CU Amiga Super CD-ROM 2/CU Amiga Magazine's Super CD-ROM 02 (1996)(EMAP Images)(GB)[!][issue 1996-04].iso/magazine/amiga_e/amigae.sept.archive/000070_crash!UNCA.EDU!JVANRIPER_Sun, 26 Sep 93 05:41:45 PST.msg

Text File | 1993-11-02 | 9KB | 163 lines

Received: by bkhouse.cts.com (V1.16/Amiga)
    id AA00000; Sun, 26 Sep 93 05:41:45 PST
Received: from uncavx by crash.cts.com with smtp
    (Smail3.1.28.1 #18) id m0ogvLh-0000NzC; Sun, 26 Sep 93 05:37 PDT
Received: from UNCA.EDU by UNCA.EDU (PMDF V4.2-13 #3902) id
 <[e-mail]>; Sun, 26 Sep 1993 08:35:55 EDT
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 08:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
From: "Joseph E. Van_Riper III" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Does E Stack Against Other Languages

In response to a message by Barry:

| And please don't take anything I said here personally, Trey.

No problem... as if I'm the end-all of computer programmers <chuckle>.

| I believe the proper expression is "E is FA-A-A-A-A-A-A-AST!!!" :-)  It is a
| major fault of E that when I used C++ I always had an opportunity to go get a
| sandwich or take a leak.  EC doesn't give me the chance to step away!  Oh
| well, not all languages/compilers are perfect :-/  (joke, you may laugh :-)

<laugh>

I'm in the same boat.  Once I actually blinked my eyes.. BIG mistake...

| Yes, indeedy!  I'd also like to add that E is far more reliable than any other
| language I've used on the Amiga.  My C++ compiler came with some broken and/or
| missing functions! And that thing cost me $225 at the time.  I'm still pissed
| about that 3 years later!  And I was told that if I wanted to upgrade my
| compiler I would need to buy a *complete* C package to replace the outdated
| one supplied with C++ (already 2 major versions behind!),  another $150-$200!
| Which brings up two more issues.  Even if Wouter charges "a lot" for v2.5 it
| will still be much more affordable than other commercial products, and if you
| have access to this mailing list (and you've proven that you do) then you
| already have better support than most other Amiga programmers, including those
| who buy expensive C++ compilers from well-known corporations. :-)

I'm one of those people who bought a certain well-known C++ compilor from a
certain well-known company for a certain well-known price of $300 (at the
time), who noticed that the company was also well-known for not documenting its
work properly, having absolutely shitty header files (files that would not
reference types.h, but use stuff within it.. etc.) and yet decided to start
charging $$$ for technical support.  Even following their illogically laid-out
book, there are problems you cannot work out with that particular compilor.
Just say NO...

And, as you said, charging an additional $n00 for a bleeding *C* compilor is
nothing short of highway robbery.  I have plenty of complaints against that
company.  I wish I could get my money back from them <sigh>.  The only reason I
didn't go to the GNU C++ compilor was because of hard-drive size.. I can't
afford to give up 10 megs just to a compilor!

Which is yet another "nice thing" about E... you don't have huge header-files
filling up your hard-drive.  Since it's binary, it's compact.  VERY nice.

I had noticed perhaps one little documentation error in E.. something I easily
verified for myself and changed (I think I included the change in the
amigaguide-formatted file I sent out.. not sure).  It had something to do with
the MidStr function, but I don't remember what it was.

Considering the billions of mistakes I found in the C++'s manual, this was a
very minor problem.  Heck, if Commodore can make mistakes in their Includes and
Autodocs, I'm sure Wouter can make a mistake in his E manual <grin>.  Wouter's
manual was logically laid out (although it takes a little bit to catch on to
the logic, if you have never taken a structured programming language course,
such as myself <sigh>), and covered most of the bases.

RE: various problems I cited with E (currently), and my expectations that
they'll be solved with the next release

| This WILL go away with the next release.  E v2.5 will support modules, and in
| a much better way then EPP.

I am eagerly awaiting this.

BTW: thank you for the PROC suggestion for handling struct.struct.struct
problems.  That'll be yet another way of handling it.. and it looks fairly
elegant.

RE: My comment that I loathe global variables, and I have to do strange things
to work around it with E, due to lack of OOP features

| Hm, what do you have to do?

I either have to pass a bunch of pointers, create an object whose pointer I'd
have to pass, or do very cumbersome case statements (I think Wouter made a
comment once about a very nasty-looking case statement I had... he suggested I
consider using more PROCs, but I didn't feel like creating the case-statement I
would have had to make).

You should see it.. it is almost a work of horror-art... I have a case
statement that extends for several pages, and one of the cases extends for
about two pages.. all because I wanted to avoid using global variables.  I'm
almost phobic about it.  I *am thinking about making a huge object to pass
instead, just to make life a little easier for the poor slob who might decide
to read the code sometime (not to mention forcing me to handle things
differently.. perhaps in a better way).

| GURUs:  when you try to use the more powerful features of any programming
| language your gonna crash the machine.  I've crashed my Amiga more often
| using C++ than with E (and I've had to wait 300 to 500 times longer to
| compile, link,  and crash my computer in C++! :-)  I've even crashed my
| machine using AmigaBASIC, imagine that!

I'm trying to imagine anyone even bothering to PROGRAM in AmigaBASIC <shudder>.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever had your C++ compilor (I've noticed that
we've both tried to avoid naming the company who sells it) guru DURING the
compilation of the code?  I'm not talking about the code guruing when you try
to run it.. I'm talking about the compilor itself guruing.  This happened to be
consistently while I was teaching myself C++ on that particular compilor.

E never did that to me.  It would compile my code, and then I could find the
little bombs I created within my own code.  I'd have to say, though, that I've
bombed my Amiga more with E than C++.. only because I've done more serious
programming with E than C++ (I gave up on the C++ compilor early in the game,
when I saw how concerned the company was for its customers).

I will grant this as an acolade higher than I can assign to any other writer of
programming languages, and that is, simply, that Wouter van [name incredibly
too long for me to remember well] supports E EXTREMELY well.

I've sent him E-mail a few times with various what-not regarding E (before I
found this list), and he's always responded with candor and diligence.  I was
concerned that I might be hindering his programming of the update, so I asked
if there might be a forum wherein I could babble various questions, and he
mentioned this list to me.  He was even POLITE!

Let me emphasize this...

He was p-o-l-i-t-e!

I once thought I found an error in his compilor, and, as any dutiful user-of-
programs should do, I decided to inform him of this bug.  It turned out that
the bug was something on *my part, not the compilor's part, but he didn't rant
and rave or anything.. he thanked me for my concern, and nicely asked for more
information (it was in the search for more information that I finally figured
out that *I* was the cause of the bug, not *he*).

In contrast, I've dealt with other programmers who were very rude to me at the
mention of a possible bug in their programs (even if one existed).  It was
almost as if I had slandered them on international television, saying something
like "And [such-and-so programmer] prefers sex with aardvarks over other
humans."  Really weird.  As a result, I am usually somewhat timid about
mentioning bugs to programmers.

This message is entirely too long, and doesn't really say all that much, but I
hope it's helpful to SOMEONE out there.  If you're still considering whether or
not to program in E, just give it a small try.  Even a simple 'Hello World'
program... then try another compilor (*borrow* [don't keep] that C++ compilor
from a friend, please don't make the mistake Barry and I made, and actually PAY
for such a piece of trash), and notice the difference.

I feel certain you'll prefer E.

- Trey