Euphoria Programming Language

I object for the same reasons stated before, providing multiple options 
to accomplish the same task doesn't make it easier, it only makes it 
more difficult and confusing. This is true with API and command line 
parameters. One time John sees euc -plat L and another time euc -plat 
WINDOWS and another time euc -plat NET. What is he suppose to do with 
that information? Consistency is very important, so is self 
documentation -- again with API and command line parameters. Anyone can 
read: -plat LINUX and later -plat LINUX and later -plat NETBSD and know 
*exactly* what is going on. No confusion, no additional documentation 
to wade through and try to make sense of (describing the new rules, 
what can use a single letter abbreviation vs a 3 letter vs full), etc...
  
We shouldn't provide: substring, substr and ss functions just to save 
typing. Nor should we allow -plat L, -plat LIN and -plat LINUX.
  
Jeremy
------ Original Message ------
From: "Shawn Pringle" <shawn.pringle@...>
To: rapideuphoria-develop@...
Sent: 11/27/2011 6:40:38 PM
Subject: [Rapideuphoria-develop] -plat options
>Though there are some who prefer to type the whole name for their
>platform.  For consistency, I said lets allow Windows also to allow to
>have a full name option to -plat.  It turns out it is easy to allow
>three letter abbreviation for all of the platforms and one letter
>abbreviations for all but two.  There are only two that start with the
>same letter.  So, does anyone have an objection to allowing all of the
>following?
>
>-plat W, -plat WIN, -plat WINDOWS - for Windows,
>-plat L, -plat LIN, -plat LINUX - for Linux,
>-plat N, -plat NET, -plat NETBSD - for NETBSD, etc ...
>
>Shawn Pringle
>--
>PGP public key available at pool.sks-keyservers.net
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
>contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
>security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
>data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
>
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
>_______________________________________________
>Rapideuphoria-develop mailing list
>Rapideuphoria-develop@...
>
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rapideuphoria-develop
>
>

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:52 +1100, Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy@...>  
wrote:

> I object for the same reasons stated before, providing multiple options
> to accomplish the same task doesn't make it easier, it only makes it
> more difficult and confusing. This is true with API and command line
> parameters. One time John sees euc -plat L and another time euc -plat
> WINDOWS and another time euc -plat NET. What is he suppose to do with
> that information? Consistency is very important, so is self
> documentation -- again with API and command line parameters. Anyone can
> read: -plat LINUX and later -plat LINUX and later -plat NETBSD and know
> *exactly* what is going on. No confusion, no additional documentation
> to wade through and try to make sense of (describing the new rules,
> what can use a single letter abbreviation vs a 3 letter vs full), etc...
> We shouldn't provide: substring, substr and ss functions just to save
> typing. Nor should we allow -plat L, -plat LIN and -plat LINUX.
> Jeremy
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Shawn Pringle" <shawn.pringle@...>
> To: rapideuphoria-develop@...
> Sent: 11/27/2011 6:40:38 PM
> Subject: [Rapideuphoria-develop] -plat options
>> Though there are some who prefer to type the whole name for their
>> platform.  For consistency, I said lets allow Windows also to allow to
>> have a full name option to -plat.  It turns out it is easy to allow
>> three letter abbreviation for all of the platforms and one letter
>> abbreviations for all but two.  There are only two that start with the
>> same letter.  So, does anyone have an objection to allowing all of the
>> following?
>>
>> -plat W, -plat WIN, -plat WINDOWS - for Windows,
>> -plat L, -plat LIN, -plat LINUX - for Linux,
>> -plat N, -plat NET, -plat NETBSD - for NETBSD, etc ...
>>

I support Jeremy's POV on this and I'll even go one further and say we  
should have had "-platform" rather than "-plat".

-- 
Derek

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Derek Parnell <ddparnell@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:52 +1100, Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I object for the same reasons stated before, providing multiple options
>> to accomplish the same task doesn't make it easier, it only makes it
>> more difficult and confusing. This is true with API and command line
>> parameters. One time John sees euc -plat L and another time euc -plat
>> WINDOWS and another time euc -plat NET. What is he suppose to do with
>> that information? Consistency is very important, so is self
>> documentation -- again with API and command line parameters. Anyone can
>> read: -plat LINUX and later -plat LINUX and later -plat NETBSD and know
>> *exactly* what is going on. No confusion, no additional documentation
>> to wade through and try to make sense of (describing the new rules,
>> what can use a single letter abbreviation vs a 3 letter vs full), etc...
>> We shouldn't provide: substring, substr and ss functions just to save
>> typing. Nor should we allow -plat L, -plat LIN and -plat LINUX.
>> Jeremy
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Shawn Pringle" <shawn.pringle@...>
>> To: rapideuphoria-develop@...
>> Sent: 11/27/2011 6:40:38 PM
>> Subject: [Rapideuphoria-develop] -plat options
>>> Though there are some who prefer to type the whole name for their
>>> platform.  For consistency, I said lets allow Windows also to allow to
>>> have a full name option to -plat.  It turns out it is easy to allow
>>> three letter abbreviation for all of the platforms and one letter
>>> abbreviations for all but two.  There are only two that start with the
>>> same letter.  So, does anyone have an objection to allowing all of the
>>> following?
>>>
>>> -plat W, -plat WIN, -plat WINDOWS - for Windows,
>>> -plat L, -plat LIN, -plat LINUX - for Linux,
>>> -plat N, -plat NET, -plat NETBSD - for NETBSD, etc ...
>>>
>
> I support Jeremy's POV on this and I'll even go one further and say we
> should have had "-platform" rather than "-plat".

I disagree in this case (not necessarily with platform vs plat).  I
don't see this as having multiple options, but a more sophisticated
interface for determining user intent.  It's essentially offering a
shortcut.

If things are truly unambiguous, does forcing the user to look up
whether he needs to type WINDOWS instead of WIN really help anything?
I agree with the general statement that creating many ways to do
something can be more confusing than with a single way of doing it.
But I don't believe this is one of those cases.

-- 
Matt Lewis

On 27/11/2011 9:21 PM, Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:15:52 +1100, Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy@...>  
> wrote:
> 
>> I object for the same reasons stated before, providing multiple options
>> to accomplish the same task doesn't make it easier, it only makes it
>> more difficult and confusing. This is true with API and command line
>> parameters. One time John sees euc -plat L and another time euc -plat
>> WINDOWS and another time euc -plat NET. What is he suppose to do with
>> that information? Consistency is very important, so is self
>> documentation -- again with API and command line parameters. Anyone can
>> read: -plat LINUX and later -plat LINUX and later -plat NETBSD and know
>> *exactly* what is going on. No confusion, no additional documentation
>> to wade through and try to make sense of (describing the new rules,
>> what can use a single letter abbreviation vs a 3 letter vs full), etc...
>> We shouldn't provide: substring, substr and ss functions just to save
>> typing. Nor should we allow -plat L, -plat LIN and -plat LINUX.
>> Jeremy
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Shawn Pringle" <shawn.pringle@...>
>> To: rapideuphoria-develop@...
>> Sent: 11/27/2011 6:40:38 PM
>> Subject: [Rapideuphoria-develop] -plat options
>>> Though there are some who prefer to type the whole name for their
>>> platform.  For consistency, I said lets allow Windows also to allow to
>>> have a full name option to -plat.  It turns out it is easy to allow
>>> three letter abbreviation for all of the platforms and one letter
>>> abbreviations for all but two.  There are only two that start with the
>>> same letter.  So, does anyone have an objection to allowing all of the
>>> following?
>>>
>>> -plat W, -plat WIN, -plat WINDOWS - for Windows,
>>> -plat L, -plat LIN, -plat LINUX - for Linux,
>>> -plat N, -plat NET, -plat NETBSD - for NETBSD, etc ...
>>>
> 
> I support Jeremy's POV on this and I'll even go one further and say we  
> should have had "-platform" rather than "-plat".
> 

By the same argument we should do away with -eudir and put
-euphoria-directory, and for -c, -configuration-file, and for -i
-include-directory, and for -d, -defined-word.  I am a fan of bash
command line completion because I only need to type up to what is
unique.  Command line programs with a long history, such as UNIX
commands, often will take long options with long human readable words
and short commands that are only one letter.  If not, we might as well
put up a dialog box with radio buttons, check boxes, and a browse button
when we open euiw.exe because it will be faster to use.

Shawn Pringle


-- 
PGP public key available at pool.sks-keyservers.net

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:53:25 +1100, Matt Lewis  
<matthewwalkerlewis@...> wrote:
> It's essentially offering a shortcut.
  ...
> I agree with the general statement that creating many ways to do
> something can be more confusing than with a single way of doing it.
> But I don't believe this is one of those cases.

Well we all have opinions ...

I guess the trade-off is ease-of-use verses communication.

Shortcuts are better when people are continually typing the command line  
in at the console, and the longer forms are better when used in a  
configuration file. So on that basis, it might be that we need both proper  
long forms AND their shortcuts in order to accommodate both uses.


-- 
Derek

On 27/11/2011 11:40 PM, Derek Parnell wrote:

> Shortcuts are better when people are continually typing the command line  
> in at the console, and the longer forms are better when used in a  
> configuration file. So on that basis, it might be that we need both proper  
> long forms AND their shortcuts in order to accommodate both uses.
> 
> 

I couldn't have said that better myself.

Shawn Pringle

-- 
PGP public key available at pool.sks-keyservers.net