|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, pierre.orphelin wrote:
> Maybe only a C version of the Xaverage code could be more complicated than
> the ESPL version of the Xaverage code below.
Hmmm... As I count them, it is 19 lines of actual code for ESPL, and 11
lines for EL - no big deal (and the difference could be made visually
smaller by recoding). They are both quite clear to me.
Also, I note that the structure and form of the two examples are almost
the same (begin..end, etc). Even the variable names could be almost
identical, if one chose to write it that way. This indeed confirms the
similarity of EL & ESPL, both related to Pascal.
The ESPL code was well commented so folks could more easily understand it.
Thanks, Earl. The EL code was not documented at all. Perhaps Pierre was
counting the lines of documentation as part of the code, or perhaps he
is so smart he does not include comments in his code <g>. Or perhaps he
removed the comments to make the EL code look smaller. That would tend to
make his point seem a bit more valid.
> Thanks a lot Earl, I think that none will try to download Ensign software
> now!
Indeed, thanks, Earl, for showing us how similar the two languages are.
It increases my interest in ESPL even more.
> Unfortunately, this will not stop yet your multiple message post to promote
> this dinosaur tool on Omega List.
Thanks also, Earl, for pointing out how quickly problems are fixed in
Ensign. **Quite** a contrast to Omega <g>. It is nice to see this
up-and-coming code evolving so quickly and so well. I appreciate your
keeping us posted on this alternative to TS. Keep us informed.
> HAhaHAha!!!!! Hihihihihi...
> -Pierre Orphelin
Ooops, this strange laughter reminds me - I almost forgot - thanks to
Pierre for his example showing how similar the codes really are.
Larry
|