Ok, the valid reason is you continue to talk like you know the truth and there is no space for a different opinion.
Tenaja wrote:
They obviously have the skills. If you cannot admit that, then you are either naive or a moron.
I didn't negate that, if you read my post. The skill part, not being a moron I mean. Or naive.
I don't see why you should be entitled to give me a binary choice, there is a third one.
Again you say your point of view is the evident truth. I disagree.
I have already admitted the dedication and constancy (from Fred). The skill is there up to a point. It's not certainly exceptional if you really want to pull it out of my throat. Ok, are you happy now ? Anyway it's my opinion. Stop telling me what I should see to make you happy because I don't see it. I don't see this godlike status many here see. Geez.
Tenaja wrote:
As for "looking at other languages," there is not one language out there that does not lack something compared to another language.
Sure. But there are a lot of languages, most of them implement features PB doesn't have and so it shouldn't be a problem to talk about that features and asking for them. Even if probably useless to do it for the reasons I have hinted and you can read in Danilo's post too. Mixing signed/unsigned is a feature PB does not have, while many languages have.
I don't even contest this particularly feature could may have been omitted more by deliberately choice than anything else, something I don't think it's true for most of the rest. That's I think why libraries grows with every version while the language has, from time to time, just very little incremental updates well localized and with minimal impact to the generated code. Nothing major.
And then there is the quality of compilers. If you look at other compilers their quality is vastly superior to the PB compiler.
On every aspect. The quality of the code generated, the lack of the incredibly naive bugs the PB compiler has, the fact they have to parse language constructs 10 time more complex then the simple, linear syntax of PB constructs and yet they do it while in PB syntax choices are often to help the compiler to understand something and not the programmer.
They were made not by one person sure, and by people who has a background in building compilers, but that's not the point.
Their existence is the point.
PB it's a nice product, simple to learn, easy to use, with many problems a lot of people here don't consider problems, and elevated to some ideals of near-perfection I don't think it deserve together with its developers (good as they are up to a point). I would just like to be realist since so few people here are.
To me what I said it's plain evident. And I don't think if you don't see it you are a moron, just a little ignorant about what a compiler is expected to do and how or how a language should be to be consider contemporary and not from the 70s. But it's fine with me. And you can have a different opinion, I just wanted to write mine.
Just don't be upset if when someone who does read that some features are missing just because it was a stylistic choice but was absolutely doable by Fred and co if they just wanted to do it raises some doubts about that. I have a lot of doubts, to be polite.
Danilo wrote:It started without any study and knowledge of compiler design
and compiler construction - and you could feel that in the earlier years - just by using the product.
Going 'there own way', instead of using known algorithms and ways for building compilers,
results most likely in a very complex code, that may not be easy to change and is hard to maintain.
The resulting product works most of the time, but I think it may have its very own limits
when it comes to extensibility/expandability.
That's my point of view too.
Danilo wrote:
If such a limit is reached, do you expect the team to admit it to public by saying "we are not able to do it"?
It would be a shame, that's why freak talks like he could do everything and reasons for not doing it are other things.
That's also my view.
Thread asking to be locked now, I suppose.
Yet there no reason, we were just talking about mixing signed/unsigned integers (like it's possible in other languages), when someone started to say everything would be possible if the developers just wanted to and wanted to convince me about that.
But I don't think it's true.
Keya statement (the one considered offensive) it was true at its core, IMO.
OK tenaja, I will not post it here anymore in any case now because all has been said and done so if you want to call me moron a little more feel free
What did I say that was offensive??? It's a Feature Request or "constructive criticism" at worst! You still haven't given a single reason why it would be beneficial not to be implemented, which surely would be simple if such a reason existed.
