home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Path: cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
- From: jralph@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Jolyon Ralph")
- Subject: Re: Frustrated Jolyon (was Re: E - Just say NO! (was Re: Visual E - New E
- Message-ID: <DpJo8w.HqA@cix.compulink.co.uk>
- Organization: Compulink Information eXchange
- References: <4k7k0p$4u4@pravda.aa.msen.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:02:56 GMT
- X-News-Software: Ameol32
-
- > And I'd rather have to enclose things in ()'s than in {}'s and
- > end every statement with a ';' ;}
-
- It's something I get used to. I end up having to delete lots of pointless
- ;s I automatically put at the end of lines when writing E. And why is a {
- more dificult or confusing than a (. btw. I have a font with the ( as
- bold brackets and the { as normal, so it's easy to distinguish between
- them. That's very handy in C....
-
- > Non-modularity??? What the hell is the "OPT MODULE" keyword for, then?
- > I write modules, using small testing "main" code to debug it. Then I
- > plug it into my larger applications. If this isn't modularity, then
- > what the hell is?
-
- You're right, of course, and Photogenics is split into (gasp) three
- modules now, but that's a relatively new thing in E, and certainly in the
- original versions we were using (2.x?) it didn't support this (and to be
- fair to Jase, I don't think he's used E as much as me since the early
- days). The main point, however, is the modules are non-standard, so you
- can't link them into projects containing code generated with other
- compilers.
-
- Jolyon
-