Re: Differences between SmartEiffel and ECMA

Hi Howard,
Thank you for your reply.

I=E2=80=99m currently a .NET developer, but I=E2=80=99m passionate about th=
e Eiffel language. It=E2=80=99s very sad that it is so unpopular, because i=
t=E2=80=99s far more better than all the current =E2=80=9Cmain-stream=E2=80=
=9D ones.

I=E2=80=99m most familiar with the ISE implementation, but that one is eith=
er very expensive or GPL (so you are forced to be hobbyist only) and the Sm=
artEiffel seems to be the only one which is feature-full, stable and really=
 free. How do you judge it =E2=80=93 is it really production stable (at the=
 time of its latest version) or it=E2=80=99s rather an academic =E2=80=9Cpr=
oof of concept=E2=80=9D with many gaps here and there ?

Based on what you wrote, it seems that SmartEiffel doesn=E2=80=99t miss any=
 substantial features of the ECMA variant (at least from language point of =
view). You mentioned differences in kernel and libraries =E2=80=93 what kin=
d of differences ? Are they just another approach to solutions, or they are=
 somehow feature-limited or not well-finished ?

I also know about the Gobo project (would be another free option), but if I=
 look at (for example) the compiler description, it=E2=80=99s full of missi=
ng basic features, co basically can=E2=80=99t be used=E2=80=A6

Best regards,
Piotr


"Howard Thomson" <[email protected]> pisze:
> Hi Piotr,
>=20
> I don't recall that there is anywhere specific for this, unfortunately.
>=20
> I am an ex-user of SmartEiffel, and as it hasn't changed much, if at
> all, since I stopped using it, I should be able to highlight the
> substantive differences ...
>=20
> The two most prominent differences are in letter case acceptability for
> identifiers, and non-conforming inheritance, with other substantial
> differences in the kernel and other core libraries.
>=20
> SmartEiffel does not follow the case-insensitiveness of ECMA and all
> non-SmartEiffel implementations of Eiffel, rejecting as invalid
> identifiers that do not follow the recommended selection of
> all_lower_case for routines and variables, Initial_upper_case for
> constants [and possible once routines] and ALL_UPPER_CASE for class
> names.
>=20
> As a substantial corpus of code that I have worked on originated from C
> and C++ source and does not follow these constraints, I ended up
> spending more time re-adapting SmartEiffel to be smart enough to be able
> to continue compiling my Eiffel conformant code than getting useful work
> done ...
>=20
>=20
> For non-conforming inheritance, SmartEiffel introduced the keyword
> 'insert' following 'inherit' to denote that the functionality of the
> inserted classes be available to the current class, but that the current
> class be not conformable with [assignable to] variables of the inserted
> class.
>=20
> ECMA specifies the 'inherit {NONE} ...' syntax for the above.
>=20
>=20
> There are substantial differences in the libraries as well, together
> with differences in kernel expanded classes such as INTEGER_8/16/32/64,
> REAL_32/64 vs FLOAT/DOUBLE.
>=20
>=20
> I have since moved to using the Gobo libraries and my own variant of the
> 'gec' compiler as my primary toolset, which does maintain source code
> [although not configuration file] compatibility with EiffelStudio.
>=20
> Good luck with your research,
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Howard
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Differences between SmartEiffel and ECMA
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:16:50 +0200 (CEST)
>=20
> Hello,
> Can somebody point me to a resource where I can find the language differe=
nces
> between SmartEiffel and the ECMA standard ?
>=20
> Piotr
>=20
> --=20
> Howard Thomson=20
>=20
>=20




----------------------------------------------------------------
Twoj wlasny dom za 675 zl/m-c!
http://linkint.pl/f2a56