1. another one bites the dust
- Posted by Joel Crook <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
Mar 25, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 26, 2000
just a note to say I'm dropping off the list...
of late it's been real
and it's been fun
but it ain't been real fun.
I have been left with the impression that my registering Euphoria was a
waste of $40.
While the concepts of ATOMs and Sequences are excellent ideas, the
implimentation of the language leaves me wondering why so much of the
language is in "Stamped" files rather than compiled into it and why so much
of the language was NOT written by the guy making the money from it.
I can hear the refrain "Because it would slow it down." or "Because it
would be too big." To the same size and speed as Qbasic, perhaps? The
reality is. folks, that what the man behind the curtain is not saying is:
size and speed play a big part in why Euphoria drags along as an
interpreter.
A while ago I was chastised for my opinions on "older technology" and
people's ability to pay... etc. etc. The truth is (in my useless opinion)
this is Euphoria's main sales market: 386's and 286's and it is the reason
Rob is in no hurry to upgrade the language with features which won't work
on his bread and butter.
I do give RDS credit for producing an interpreter --- It is not easy to
create a language --- I swallow real hard everytime a look at doing that
and then flinch but there are full blown commercial quality programming
products out there that are freeware, GPL'd or otherwise, that will beat
the pants off of Euphoria.
Try lcc-win32 with BCX or Max Reason's GPL'd XBasic ( for Win and Linux)
not to mention Borland's Turbo Museum. Don't like freeware want to pay for
it? FirstBasic $25 for dos from PowerBasic, Or OmniBasic for DOS Win,
Linux $29 for the personal version. These are COMPILERS not an interpreter
and will beat the pants off of Euphoria's execution speed.
Each of those languages have their drawbacks but less so than listening to
grumpy folks call each other names and dealing a language that has less and
less going for it.
Euphoria could be a great language but as it stands it will continue to be
a "toy" language created by one guy who is assisted by other folks, who in
the genius and spirit of Rube Goldberg, manage to tack things on to it, so
it can continue to function.
Wouldn't the effort be better spent in other ways? Like turning it into a
compiler? Like giving it a standard set of c-like or pascal like calling
routines. As it stands it is a fatherless child of C with an irrational
upbringing.
I congratulate each of you on your contributions to keeping Rob in
business. You have done an excellent job, I hope you will feel the same way
when he releases the next version... If he ever does...
As with all things, we chose to do what we do, and choose to say what we
believe. Should I spend the time to put up with listening to BS from people
who should know better or move on to other things that are more productive?
I look at the words of this group and say it's time to move on. I can hear
your electronic sigh of relief...
Joel H. Crook
"A Strong house is built upon a strong foundation. What are your beliefs
built upon?" -- "The Book of Reminders"
2. Re: another one bites the dust
------Original Message------
From: Joel Crook <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Sent: March 26, 2000 5:33:19 AM GMT
Subject: another one bites the dust
just a note to say I'm dropping off the list...
of late it's been real
and it's been fun
but it ain't been real fun.
I have been left with the impression that my registering Euphoria was a
waste of $40.
While the concepts of ATOMs and Sequences are excellent ideas, the
implimentation of the language leaves me wondering why so much of the
language is in "Stamped" files rather than compiled into it and why so much
of the language was NOT written by the guy making the money from it.
I can hear the refrain "Because it would slow it down." or "Because it
would be too big." To the same size and speed as Qbasic, perhaps? The
reality is. folks, that what the man behind the curtain is not saying is:
size and speed play a big part in why Euphoria drags along as an
interpreter.
A while ago I was chastised for my opinions on "older technology" and
people's ability to pay... etc. etc. The truth is (in my useless opinion)
this is Euphoria's main sales market: 386's and 286's and it is the reason
Rob is in no hurry to upgrade the language with features which won't work
on his bread and butter.
I do give RDS credit for producing an interpreter --- It is not easy to
create a language --- I swallow real hard everytime a look at doing that
and then flinch but there are full blown commercial quality programming
products out there that are freeware, GPL'd or otherwise, that will beat
the pants off of Euphoria.
Try lcc-win32 with BCX or Max Reason's GPL'd XBasic ( for Win and Linux)
not to mention Borland's Turbo Museum. Don't like freeware want to pay for
it? FirstBasic $25 for dos from PowerBasic, Or OmniBasic for DOS Win,
Linux $29 for the personal version. These are COMPILERS not an interpreter
and will beat the pants off of Euphoria's execution speed.
Each of those languages have their drawbacks but less so than listening to
grumpy folks call each other names and dealing a language that has less and
less going for it.
Euphoria could be a great language but as it stands it will continue to be
a "toy" language created by one guy who is assisted by other folks, who in
the genius and spirit of Rube Goldberg, manage to tack things on to it, so
it can continue to function.
Wouldn't the effort be better spent in other ways? Like turning it into a
compiler? Like giving it a standard set of c-like or pascal like calling
routines. As it stands it is a fatherless child of C with an irrational
upbringing.
I congratulate each of you on your contributions to keeping Rob in
business. You have done an excellent job, I hope you will feel the same way
when he releases the next version... If he ever does...
As with all things, we chose to do what we do, and choose to say what we
believe. Should I spend the time to put up with listening to BS from people
who should know better or move on to other things that are more productive?
I look at the words of this group and say it's time to move on. I can hear
your electronic sigh of relief...
Joel H. Crook
"A Strong house is built upon a strong foundation. What are your beliefs
built upon?" -- "The Book of Reminders"
Obviously you are veteran of programming if you were even considering
writing your own language. You should have realized your recent
enlightenment BEFORE you wasted your forty bucks. Don't flame people for
gouging your pocket, because you didn't take the time to do a little
research!(there's a PD version that's fully functional) COSTS NOTHING!!!
Have you even seen the PLETHORA of libs and such for EU?
I certainly wouldn't even consider DL'ing Euphoria if it contained all of
these. Especially since I'll never use most of them. Euphoria was designed
as a CORE, with the functionality and features that everyone will use.
Unlike other languages, not naming any names (cough, QBASIC!!,cough,cough).
Furthermore, I'm sure you program in C. You mean to tell me you've NEVER
used any libs in your APPS!? I'm sure you have and do.
Do you think that BORLAND or MS (or whoever) wrote them all?NO..
Did RDS ever stipulate that you had to post your libs?NO..
Did RDS ever stipulate that you couldn't sell your libs?NO
Another point:
The public development is what attracts me. I think it's superb idea.
Allowing people to congregate on a single goal.
Do you seriously think that EU could be even remotely useful if everyone had
to submit their ideas to RDS and hope that they see it in the next release,
whenever that would be.
Granted, I do agree that RDS should give a little more credit for useful
routines.(ie. DAVID CUNY should get somethin' for his efforts, EU WIN would
be pretty useless without him, at best a HUGE pain in the ass)
From your comments, I can see why you're so frustrated, you want EU to be
more like the other languages. Well, I got news for you bud, it's NOT C, or
PASCAL , or BASIC, or.., or..
Last but not least:
It took me a month to learn QBASIC, and then I still needed a lib for this
and a lib for that, try and find them.
It took me one day to learn EU. Oh! I need a lib, goto RDS, whaddya know!
There it is!
As well, through learning EU, I've grasped an understanding of C/C+ and asm.
In one month (how long I've been coding EU), I've learned more than in the
TWO YEARS I was coding QBASIC.
-- A loyal EU fan
--WORDS of WISDOM
-You can't teach an old dog new tricks( yeah, I mean you)
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
3. Re: another one bites the dust
Hi
I agree with Joel on one point - this interminable nagging at RDS to
introduce this or that favourite feature is a bore. When it turns into an
excuse for badmouthing of RDS, it's a drag. It's draining enough for me, and
must be a real drain for Rob and Junko. These people have performed a real
service, developed an excellent product for which they've developed a way of
providing wonderful support, and made it available at low cost, or free if
you want to deal with a bit of inconvenience. If the rest of the software
industry provided such excellent value for money the issue of software
piracy would be a very much less significant issue than it is.
My comment to Joel is that Euphoria, as it is, provides me with facilities
and an ease of use, that, for my purposes make it far more valuable than any
other language I've encountered. I've got a pretty advanced computer, but I
use Euphoria in dos mode purely because I need to a language that doesn't
tangle me up in GUI idiocy that has nothing to do with my work. Joel's
comment about Euphoria being a "toy" is completely misplaced. Maybe it
doesn't suit his purpose. No problem - as he says, there are lots of
languages and he can take his pick. For me though, I've made my pick - and I
like it quite a bit as it is.
Early in my use of Euphoria I asked if there was any chance of getting a
compiler to accompany the interpreter. Robert indicated that there was
really no point - that in the end there would be no improvement in either
speed or total file size. I accepted that and got on to other things. Over
time, I've seen many issues raised, and many times Robert has been very
responsive - he provides pretty detailed help to any clear question. What
I've observed is that he's not responsive to those who question the way he
does things. It's very clear to me that he has found a way of approaching
problems that provides unique solutions, and that Euphoria is a product of
that. I say - leave him be - lest you restrict his genius.
Bye
Martin Hunt
simulat at intergate.bc.ca
4. Re: another one bites the dust
>but it ain't been real fun.
Its not sometimes...
> the
>implimentation of the language leaves me wondering why so much of the
>language is in "Stamped" files rather than compiled into it and why so much
>of the language was NOT written by the guy making the money from it.
The way the language has always been...and is a cool idea I think, that the
core is developed to be fast and the language develops and grows by user
imput. The whole structure of that is the bold grand experiment. I think
it is cool, and some of the things developed BY the users have been
extremely interesting, considering it is a 175k interpreter. And stamped
files is a VERY recent addition, to make unregistered users lives easier.
>I can hear the refrain "Because it would slow it down." or "Because it
>would be too big." To the same size and speed as Qbasic, perhaps? The
>reality is. folks, that what the man behind the curtain is not saying is:
>size and speed play a big part in why Euphoria drags along as an
>interpreter.
Its fast enouph for me...you can have ANYbasic...I don't care for it.
>A while ago I was chastised for my opinions on "older technology" and
>people's ability to pay... etc. etc. The truth is (in my useless opinion)
>this is Euphoria's main sales market: 386's and 286's and it is the reason
>Rob is in no hurry to upgrade the language with features which won't work
>on his bread and butter.
Euphoria WON'T run on a 286. It IS optimized for Pentium in some instances.
>Try lcc-win32 with BCX or Max Reason's GPL'd XBasic ( for Win and Linux)
>not to mention Borland's Turbo Museum. Don't like freeware want to pay for
>it? FirstBasic $25 for dos from PowerBasic, Or OmniBasic for DOS Win,
>Linux $29 for the personal version. These are COMPILERS not an interpreter
>and will beat the pants off of Euphoria's execution speed.
>Each of those languages have their drawbacks
Try not wanting, or knowing how to program in C, or WANTING to use basic.
Euphoria is a great beginners and users language.
but less so than listening to
>grumpy folks call each other names and dealing a language that has less and
>less going for it.
You have this any any group. They just can't control themselves/myselves
sometimes.
>Euphoria could be a great language but as it stands it will continue to be
>a "toy" language created by one guy who is assisted by other folks, who in
>the genius and spirit of Rube Goldberg, manage to tack things on to it, so
>it can continue to function.
Just because Euphoria doesn't tack on anything and everything that can be
created by the user, doesn't mean it is Rube Goldberg. I would rather do
more with LESS...I am sick of having MULTI MEGABYTES of code to run on my
latest greates multibuck machine, all to have it run slower than my old
386-sx33 with 4 megs of ram under Win3.11
>
>Wouldn't the effort be better spent in other ways? Like turning it into a
>compiler? Like giving it a standard set of c-like or pascal like calling
>routines. As it stands it is a fatherless child of C with an irrational
>upbringing.
Hardly irrational I think, I just don't think you understand the beauty of
the idea. If you want C, it is there for you in tons of ways, costs, and
implementations. If you want your own interpreter, and speak C, check out
PEU from Pete Eberlein, and modify what he has to creat your OWN language.
>I congratulate each of you on your contributions to keeping Rob in
>business. You have done an excellent job, I hope you will feel the same way
>when he releases the next version... If he ever does...
I have never given him a dollar...and he has NEVER bitched about it. He has
done more to improve the language in the past 2 years than in a long time
before that, because user interest has grown. The percentage of
unregistered users is quite large, and there is NEVER any royalties if we
develop something with that unregistered product.
>I look at the words of this group and say it's time to move on. I can hear
>your electronic sigh of relief...
I don't blame you, but the silent majority will miss the input of a probably
quite capable programmer. I am saying that this language is developed
JOINTLY, and your leaving will take away from that, which I guess is both's
loss. Sorry a few grumpy old men drove you away.
Cya
Monty
5. Re: another one bites the dust
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
>
>Last but not least:
>It took me a month to learn QBASIC, and then I still needed a lib for this
>and a lib for that, try and find them.
>It took me one day to learn EU. Oh! I need a lib, goto RDS, whaddya know!
>There it is!
>As well, through learning EU, I've grasped an understanding of C/C+ and asm.
>In one month (how long I've been coding EU), I've learned more than in the
>TWO YEARS I was coding QBASIC.
>
>-- A loyal EU fan
>
John Donne wrote it long ago. "No man is an island...each person's
death diminishes me. Mr. Crook made what is probably a more rational
decision than the one that most of us have made to stick with the
language. I have stated over and over that Euphoria is a most wonderful
teaching language. It is highly understandable on it's face as long as
one is not trying to do some of the many things that Mr. Crook and
many others have mentioned. Even longtime contributors such as
Mr. Ryan have voiced similar sentiments without the same withdrawal..
I am glad of that.
Coming from QBASIC, Euphoria must look like food of the gods. Stick
around in the field for a while and if you learn much, you will learn both
how really pleasant Euphoria is and how frustrating it's slow growth and
limitations are. When capable programmers quit the field, maybe
programmers of lesser experience should take a closer look at the field
rather than leaping to the defense when no further attack is being
offered. You seem to be reassuring yourself that your great knowledge
and experience are sufficiently superior that you won't suffer the
same fate. Time will tell. I hope that you are right and he is wrong at
least as far as staying or going is concerned. I am fairly certain that
most of his criticisms are well founded.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
6. Re: another one bites the dust
- Posted by Ian Smith <whoisian at HOTMAIL.COM>
Mar 26, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 27, 2000
I'm not going to repeat the last two messgaes because they're really long.
It really bothers me when people piss and moan because Euphoria isn't like
C/C++ or Pascal. THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF EUPHORIA IS THAT IT ISN'T LIKE
OTHER LANGUAGES. Everytime i check my email and read a message like the one
Joel Crook left and others that contain several underlying insults on RDS
and Euphoria Programmers I burst in to tantrums and swearing fits; if i only
had a tape record 5 minutes ago from writing this.
Chris.B, I commend you for putting Joel Crook in his place.
PS:I am really disgusted with the amount of flaming that goes on with this
list,IE: the major insult that Jiri Babor deliverd to four people about some
stupid message, that kept going and going .. ugh.
everyone should realize that this is a list for learning and enlightenment,
not a elementary school playground.
i hope a lot of people read this.
Ian Smith.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
7. Re: another one bites the dust
Bravo! Ian. Your dang right. This childish bickering is time wasted that I
could have been coding something for those of you who appreciate what RDS
has given us.
Furthermore my email's gett'n full!
Although I do think it's better that Joel expressed himself.
I always say, "It's better to learn from other peoples mistakes than to make
your own."
--Chris
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
8. Re: another one bites the dust
Thus spake Joel Crook on Sat, 25 Mar 2000:
>just a note to say I'm dropping off the list...
>
>of late it's been real
>
>and it's been fun
>
>but it ain't been real fun.
>
<snip>
>I look at the words of this group and say it's time to move on. I can hear
>your electronic sigh of relief...
>
Hear my electronic "pause for serious reflection". You've raised some issues
which bear thinking about. Thank you.
Zaph.
9. Re: another one bites the dust
ian wrote:
> It really bothers me when people piss and moan because Euphoria isn't like
> C/C++ or Pascal. THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF EUPHORIA IS THAT IT ISN'T LIKE
> OTHER LANGUAGES.
The point of language isnt not to be like other language, but to be perfect.
So by picking out what's good in c++ and leaving what's bad isn't bad thing,
and since c++ is good language, euphoria should be similar to it.
but it must leave out it's painful usage of memory, where you loose a lot of
time, which has been done with sequences.
Euphoria win32 programming is using C-windows functions and general euphoria
language.
Offtopic:
1.Anybody knows where in registry are saved positions of icons on the Win95
desktop?
2. i have problem when clicking on "mailto:..." shortcut in internet
explorer 5. it says no e-mail program is set-up.
