Talk:Anagrams: Difference between revisions

==FBSL calling C: Is it useful?==

You may call me "others" but in fact I'm taking the liberty of talking on behalf of the FBSL Dev Team.

FIRST, FBSL is not "calling C" and is not "embedding the source" for other languages in itself here in the interactive way as e.g. Lua clones do. Of course it can do it as well in its DLL hypostasis but this is not what you're seeing here or in the Ackermann challenge and will be seeing in many more solutions to come.

SECOND, Dynamic Assembler and Dynamic C JIT compilers are indispensable features of FBSL alongside its interpretative environment. They do not require any add-ons, add-ins, plug-ins, DLLs, archives etc. etc. etc. They are already there and they interact with their interpretative parent and they exchange data with one another and they are environmental extensions of one another. They are not seen from outside and their code is not accessible to anyone but FBSL itself. The DynAsm and DynC code::blocks are FBSL's subs and functions exactly like its own interpreted subs and functions. You cannot separate them in a very much the same way as you wouldn't be able to separate the Siamese twins or they'll die.

THIRD, the decision of what intrinsic feature of a language to select for a particular task is undoubtedly the programmer's prerogative as long as the task is resolved within the context of its rules. RosettaCode is not the place to generate proprietary/patented/closed-source solutions and more than half of its code base here are ports from one another's code. My solution ''does not'' claim originality. On the contrary, it clearly states it's a verbatim copy totally in accordance with the GNU spirit of this place. And it is unique in that no other language whatsoever can boast such a solution. Who else can claim 100% compatibility with another, but any other language present at RosettaCode?

FOURTH, the unavailability of such a section as you suggest may be a clear indication that there are no other languages that are capable of doing the same. You may try to introduce one but I'm afraid, FBSL will be the only participant in there for a very very long time to come.

LAST, but not the least. We at FBSL cannot be held responsible for other devs not having time or insentive enough to accomplish what we have accomplished in FBSL. We are not saying others are worse. What we are saying is we are different and more versatile than many. Despite our remaining basically BASIC.

Yes, my Anagrams decision was a show-off and a challenge for "others" who can't claim compatible functionality. But it was clearly stated as such. This is not the first time in our 12-year old history that "others" do not like us for what we can do while they can't. But calling us an ugly duckling and trying to impose restrictions not applicable to other contestants would be totally unfair and contrary to the spirit of this place.