1. Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by "C Bouzy" <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Hello All,
I would like to have an open discussion regarding Euphoria and moving the=
language forward. I would like to get your thoughts and opinions on the
following: A few years ago I approached Robert with a proposal to try and=
bring Euphoria to the mainstream market, unfortunately he declined. Recentl=
y
my product Cloak was acquired by a larger company, and by the first quarter=
of 2006 we will no longer be the owners of Cloak. Although my company will=
no longer be the owner of the rights, we will still be involved with the=
project. Because of the acquisition I decided it would be the best time to=
also change the name of the company and produce other products. Now that my=
company is changing focus I thought it would be great to approach Robert=
once again with another proposal to attempt to bring Euphoria to the
forefront.
As I explained to Robert I am not interested in supporting multiple
platforms, and because of that I suggested my company would create a hybrid=
Euphoria. This way people who are pleased with Euphoria as is could use the=
RDS version, and people who are into hardcore Windows programming would use=
the hybrid version. I am not suggesting by letting my company create a
hybrid version of Euphoria it will become popular overnight. What I am
suggesting is by allowing my company to take the language in another
direction; it will expand the amount of people currently using Euphoria. My=
company is no where near as large as the other major software companies, bu=
t
we do have access to resources that are not currently available to RDS.
What I plan to do with the hybrid version is release a complete Windows
development environment. Complete with an IDE, compiler, Windows style
debugger, and a complete standardized Win32Lib. No more Console/DOS boxes,=
all error messages would be Windows based. In addition to redesigning the=
hybrid version to be Windows only, we would concentrate on supporting user=
=92s=20
projects by funding some of the larger libraries. In my opinion the success=
of moving Euphoria forward will be based on the users, and not the amount o=
f
features it contains.
Regrettably once again Robert has said no. He feels by allowing my company=
to create a hybrid version of Euphoria, it will split the community apart,=
and eventually it will compete with the RDS version, although Robert will=
still receive a royalty from our product.
What is your opinion on this? Would you be against another company
developing a separate version of Euphoria?
---Chris
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
2. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
I also object! I am 115 and if it wasn't for a nice simple language that is
primarily free, I would not have learnt it at all.
Its also important that people start with console programs, otherwise you will
quickly get confused!!!
Thanks,
Alex
3. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
By the way, Im 15 not 115.
4. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by "C Bouzy" <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Hi Alex,
Did you completely read my post? There would be two versions, one for peopl=
e
who are happy with EU just the way it is(RDS Version), and a Windows versio=
n
geared to people who develop Windows programs. The EU syntax would not
change, and if you are not into Windows programming or a novice you would=
use the standard version of EU. A hybrid version would appeal to users who=
are looking for a more complete development enviornment.
>From: Alex Chamberlain <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum at topica.com
>Subject: Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:32:38 -0800
>
>
>posted by: Alex Chamberlain <alex.chamberlain at tiscali.co.uk>
>
>I also object! I am 115 and if it wasn't for a nice simple language that i=
s
>primarily free, I would not have learnt it at all.
>
>Its also important that people start with console programs, otherwise you=
>will quickly get confused!!!
>
>Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
5. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Hi Chris,
There are a couple problems with that concept.
The Euphoria interpreter is now free and open-source (PD-source) software. The
only products that cost money are the distribution tools and C source code.
However, many Euphorians really don't need these products, but some buy them
anyway to support RDS and find uses for them.
Euphoria is meant to be multi-platform, with MacOS x86 being next on the porting
list. The future of Windows development lies within Microsoft's WinFX development
platform. While the Win32 API may still be available, eventually fewer and fewer
will use it. If Microsoft were to remove the Win32 API and emulated DOS, Euphoria
would no longer run on Windows.
This is why investing time with Linux, BSD, and MacOS shall get more
important, while hoping Microsoft does not remove them anytime soon.
With all this said, I highly doubt a Windows only, commercial Euphoria language
could succeed. Instead, I think RDS should consider adding
thread-safety into the interpreter and translator, so we can utilize
the new rising trend of multi-core processors. Then support 64-bit
Euphoria products, so we can utilize more than 2 GB of memory on our
64-bit computers. Additionally, it's possible that Cell processors
could make it into mainstream PC markets in the foreseeable future.
If so, I would like C/C++ compilers and an Euphoria version to run
on the them as well.
Regards,
Vincent
6. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> As I explained to Robert I am not interested in supporting multiple
> platforms, and because of that I suggested my company would create a hybrid
> Euphoria.
+ Can't you do this anyway with the public domain source?
+ Use wxEuphoria and stay cross platform. That would get my vote! :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
7. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by D. Newhall <derek_newhall at yahoo.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
I would object with this as well. While having more people supporting Euphoria
is a very good thing I feel that unnecessarily breaking the language up isn't the
right way to go about it. I understand that Euphoria isn't dedicated to Windows
programming but I don't think you need to create a separate fork of the langauge
to make it so. I think a commercially supported IDE, debugger, and GUI library
would be an excellent idea (and you could probably include me amongst your first
customers if you were to do so) but I don't think you need to mess with Euphoria
itself to do that.
However, if you were to actually get Rob to agree with this and were able to
produce a special Windows only version of Euphoria I'd only use it if it was
free. Specialized libraries, IDE, and stuff I could see myself paying for but not
a Windows specific version of an already excellent and free langauge.
Some of the other things that could be done for Euphoria besides commercial
quality development tools would be:
* A trully open-source Euphoria interpreter (OpenEu is trying to do this but I
haven't seen much progress nor do I agree with some of their decisions).
* A Euphoria compiler (There is PEu but it still has it's problems and could be
better).
* Ports to more platforms (I would absoletely love a Mac, SkyOS, or BeOS/Zeta
port).
* More good supported libraries (We already have some amazing libs but we're
missing some important ones. The ESL project is hoping to remedy the need for
some (and yes, we will have a release eventually; currently I'm shooting for real
development to start by the end of December) but we need some that people in
other langauges expect (PostgreSQL comes to mind immediately)).
* Documentation (More beginner guides and some larger practical guides. I'm
working on something for the latter).
For the last one I've been working on a book. Yes, a book, as in a book you'd
hope to see in a bookstore. I've been working on it since last May and have a
decent portion of it done and I'm hoping to have it finished by next summer. The
goal is for it to be a guide that goes above what is found in the documentation
and beginner's guides covering advanced topics like searching, sorting, and other
stuff. It will still be suitable for beginners but is more of a mixture of
tutorial and reference for already competent programmers (think O'Reilly's
"Practical C Programming" with "Mastering Algorithms in C" added in but with
Euphoria instead of C). I don't have a publisher yet but at the very least it
will be sold online. Hopefully, with more "professional" third-party
documentation available Euphoria will seem like a more inviting language for
people to use (that and a poor college student can have money for food 
).
The Euphoria Standard Library project :
http://esl.sourceforge.net/
The Euphoria Standard Library mailing list :
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion
8. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by "C Bouzy" <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Hi Cklester,
Robert said we cannot use the source to release a EU version on a platform
he already supports.
>+ Can't you do this anyway with the public domain source?
>+ Use wxEuphoria and stay cross platform. That would get my vote! :)
>
9. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by "C Bouzy" <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Your book sounds great as an EBook, but I do not see it as a traditional=
book. There are not enough EU users for a publisher to justify the expense=
of putting a book into stores that represents a fairly unknown language.
>
>For the last one I've been working on a book. Yes, a book, as in a book=
>you'd hope to see in a bookstore. I've been working on it since last May=
>and have a decent portion of it done and I'm hoping to have it finished by=
>next summer. The goal is for it to be a guide that goes above what is foun=
d
>in the documentation and beginner's guides covering advanced topics like=
>searching, sorting, and other stuff. It will still be suitable for
>beginners but is more of a mixture of tutorial and reference for already=
>competent programmers (think O'Reilly's "Practical C Programming" with
>"Mastering Algorithms in C" added in but with Euphoria instead of C). I=
>don't have a publisher yet but at the very least it will be sold online.=
>Hopefully, with more "professional" third-party documentation available=
>Euphoria will seem like a more inviting language for people to use (that=
>and a poor college student can have money for food ).
>
10. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by "C Bouzy" <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Nov 25, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 26, 2005
Hi Vincent,
Win32 API is not going anywhere anytime time soon. There are too many
current and past applications that depend on it, rest assured Win32API will=
be around for at least another 20 years. 85% of all computers in the world=
use a Windows OS, so do not think Linux or any other OS will replace Window=
s
in the near future. And as I explained before the hybrid version of EU will=
not have anything to do with the current version of Euphoria. Linux is a=
pure example of people taking something open source and morphing it into=
other products. There are free and commercial versions of Linux and people=
choose which versions they want to use.
Porting EU to 4 or 5 different platforms is not going to change the fact=
people see Euphoria as a hobby language. EU is open source, but has that=
increased the users significantly? EU has been out long enough to have a=
community of no less than 500,000 users or more. There are inferior
languages that were developed and released after EU and have gained far mor=
e
popularity than EU. EU was first released in 1993 and I could count the
amount of major articles written about the language. 12 years is a long tim=
e
to get people to notice you, so it is obvious a new approach is needed. I=
have been using EU a very long time, and I have seen dedicated EU members=
leave the community because of their frustration with Robert and the
language.
If EU was truly open source then I would not have to get permission from=
Robert to create a hybrid version to begin with, and that is what I do not=
understand. It seems Robert wants people to add features to the language bu=
t
he is also restricting what people do with their =93custom=94 versions. I=
personally feel Robert has done all he can do with the language and he
should allow others to take it in other directions.
>From: Vincent <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum at topica.com
>Subject: Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:38 -0800
>
>
>posted by: Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>There are a couple problems with that concept.
>
>The Euphoria interpreter is now free and open-source (PD-source) software.=
>The only products that cost money are the distribution tools and C source=
>code. However, many Euphorians really don't need these products, but some=
>buy them anyway to support RDS and find uses for them.
>
>Euphoria is meant to be multi-platform, with MacOS x86 being next on the=
>porting list. The future of Windows development lies within Microsoft's=
>WinFX development platform. While the Win32 API may still be available,=
>eventually fewer and fewer will use it. If Microsoft were to remove the=
>Win32 API and emulated DOS, Euphoria would no longer run on Windows.
>This is why investing time with Linux, BSD, and MacOS shall get more
>important, while hoping Microsoft does not remove them anytime soon.
>
>With all this said, I highly doubt a Windows only, commercial Euphoria
>language could succeed. Instead, I think RDS should consider adding
>thread-safety into the interpreter and translator, so we can utilize
>the new rising trend of multi-core processors. Then support 64-bit
>Euphoria products, so we can utilize more than 2 GB of memory on our
>64-bit computers. Additionally, it's possible that Cell processors
>could make it into mainstream PC markets in the foreseeable future.
>If so, I would like C/C++ compilers and an Euphoria version to run
>on the them as well.
>
>
>Regards,
>Vincent
>
>
>
>
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
11. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Chris,
I think one of the biggest reasons why the Euphoria community is so tiny, is
because Eu doesn't come pre-packaged with a IDE, GUI library, GUI code editor; or
any nice GUI examples. When people download & install Euphoria, they only notice
a directory with numerous DOS examples and two extremely long/complex Windows GUI
examples, that offer little. If they download the Linux version, they get no
X-Windows GUI examples whatsoever. This almost instantly turns off most 21st
century developers. The ones who descover the all and mighty "archive" would
realize they can find all this and more with a simple search query. They would
also realize there are numerous programs and libraries located within the dozens
of user webpages too.
Keeping the Euphoria download packages small is a good thing. People with slower
internet connections don't have to wait forever to download it and RDS can keep
their webspace requirements smaller, thus keeping the price
of the C source code, translator, and binder reasonable.
It seems to me that you really don't need the source. You could just develop a
commercial IDE with many simular features offered in Visual Studio or Eclipse?
Perhaps a nice GUI interface for the translator and binder/shrouder? You would
have to keep the prices low, since we already have these things, but perhaps your
commercial solutions could be better.
But anyway...
If you use the public domain Euphoria interpreter source code, there isn't any
restrictions on what you can do with it; except maybe making illicit software
with evil intentions. If you use the translator, speed difference from the
official interpreter is less than 15x with Watcom (Windows, DOS),
less than 8x with GCC (Linux, FreeBSD). According to Euman, the speed can be
noticably improved with various minor optimizations in "execute.e".
Notice: these values were calculated based on sieve benchmark results.
Regards,
Vincent
12. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Hi Cklester,
>
> Robert said we cannot use the source to release a EU version on a platform
> he already supports.
>
>
> >+ Can't you do this anyway with the public domain source?
> >+ Use wxEuphoria and stay cross platform. That would get my vote! :)
> >
>
You can use the Euphoria eu.ex source for anything you want. That is the meaning
of "Public Domain". However you would have to implement the C backend on your
own, you cannot use RDS source because it is *not* free or open-source. If you
have seen the C source code, then you open yourself to an infringement lawsuit by
re-implementing it.
It's not a perfect solution, but it is pretty good for the existing user base.
I see no problem with re-releasing the "free" Euphoria version from RDS with
your own libraries and IDEs to create a better product.
--
"Actually, I'm sitting on my butt staring at a computer screen."
- Tom Tomorrow
j.
13. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I would like to have an open discussion regarding Euphoria and moving the=
>
> language forward. I would like to get your thoughts and opinions on the
> following: A few years ago I approached Robert with a proposal to try and=
>
> bring Euphoria to the mainstream market, unfortunately he declined. Recentl=
> y
> my product Cloak was acquired by a larger company, and by the first quarter=
>
> of 2006 we will no longer be the owners of Cloak. Although my company will=
>
> no longer be the owner of the rights, we will still be involved with the=
>
> project. Because of the acquisition I decided it would be the best time to=
>
> also change the name of the company and produce other products. Now that my=
>
> company is changing focus I thought it would be great to approach Robert=
>
> once again with another proposal to attempt to bring Euphoria to the
> forefront.
>
> As I explained to Robert I am not interested in supporting multiple
> platforms, and because of that I suggested my company would create a hybrid=
>
> Euphoria. This way people who are pleased with Euphoria as is could use the=
>
> RDS version, and people who are into hardcore Windows programming would use=
>
> the hybrid version. I am not suggesting by letting my company create a
> hybrid version of Euphoria it will become popular overnight. What I am
> suggesting is by allowing my company to take the language in another
> direction; it will expand the amount of people currently using Euphoria. My=
>
> company is no where near as large as the other major software companies, bu=
> t
> we do have access to resources that are not currently available to RDS.
>
> What I plan to do with the hybrid version is release a complete Windows
> development environment. Complete with an IDE, compiler, Windows style
> debugger, and a complete standardized Win32Lib. No more Console/DOS boxes,=
>
> all error messages would be Windows based. In addition to redesigning the=
>
> hybrid version to be Windows only, we would concentrate on supporting user=
> =92s=20
> projects by funding some of the larger libraries. In my opinion the success=
>
> of moving Euphoria forward will be based on the users, and not the amount o=
> f
> features it contains.
>
> Regrettably once again Robert has said no. He feels by allowing my company=
>
> to create a hybrid version of Euphoria, it will split the community apart,=
>
> and eventually it will compete with the RDS version, although Robert will=
>
> still receive a royalty from our product.
>
> What is your opinion on this? Would you be against another company
> developing a separate version of Euphoria?
>
> ---Chris
>
>
> get there! <a
> href="http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement">http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement</a>
>
>
What is the name of your Company?
Don Cole
A Bug is an un-documented feature.
A Feature is a documented Bug.
14. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Hi Vincent,
I totally agree with you that we do not need the source to create add-ons
for Euphoria, and that would be great if Euphoria had a large user base.
Unfortunately a few hundred people do not justify the time, effort, and
money associated with releasing a product, especially when the product
is a low ticket item. It would be better for my company to create our own
flavor of EU with features not supported by the current version. It is not
only an IDE, compiler, etc..etc I want to add. Myself and others have already
come to realize EU is not going to progress as other languages because of
the many limitations being put on it. Robert has released the source code,
but there are limitations on how you use the RDS version. The public domain
EU version is not then same as the RDS C version, and Robert purposely did
that so there would not be any competition to RDS. Robert knows if he
allows others to use the source code freely with no limitations whatsoever,
other versions will surpass the RDS version overnight. In some ways I do not
blame him, but if you are going to release a product as open source, do not
put any limitations on it. I have a high esteem for Robert, but after 12
years it is time to allow others to create their own flavors of the language.
PS: The laws regarding source code is quite interesting. Although Robert has
put limitations on how people can use the source, if someone alters it
significantly, he cannot seek legal action. That is one of the reasons
why you cannot patent source code.
--Chris
15. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
No it wouldn't. That is similar to someone creating a application that runs all
Windows
programs but called something else.
> I wonder if someone here didn't buy Euphoria C source but made from
> stratch a language (not named "euphoria") but 100% compatible with Eu,
> would it be copyright infringement?
>
>
16. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
-- Chris Said --
Hello All,
I would like to have an open discussion regarding
Euphoria and moving the language forward. I would like
to get your thoughts and opinions on the following: A
few years ago I approached Robert with a proposal to
try and bring Euphoria to the mainstream market,
unfortunately he declined.
Recently my product Cloak was acquired by a larger
company, and by the first quarter of 06 we will no
longer be the owners of Cloak. Although my company
will no longer be the owner of the rights, we will
still be involved with the project. Because of the
acquisition I decided it would be the best time to
also change the name of the company and produce other
products. Now that my company is changing focus I
thought it would be great to approach Robert once
again with another proposal to attempt to bring
Euphoria to the forefront.
As I explained to Robert I am not interested in
supporting multiple platforms, and because of that I
suggested my company would create a hybrid Euphoria.
This way people who are pleased with Euphoria as is
could use the RDS version, and people who are into
hardcore Windows programming would use the hybrid
version. I am not suggesting by letting my company
create a hybrid version of Euphoria it will become
popular overnight. What I am suggesting is by allowing
my company to take the language in another direction;
it will expand the amount of people currently using
Euphoria. My company is no where near as large as the
other major software companies, but we do have access
to resources that are not currently available to RDS.
What I plan to do with the hybrid version is release a
complete Windows development environment. Complete
with an IDE, compiler, Windows style debugger, and a
complete standardized Win32Lib. No more Console/DOS
boxes, all error messages would be Windows based. In
addition to redesigning the hybrid version to be
Windows only, we would concentrate on supporting user
projects by funding some of the larger libraries. In
my opinion the success of moving Euphoria forward will
be based on the users, and not the amount of features
it contains.
Regrettably once again Robert has said no. He feels by
allowing my company to create a hybrid version of
Euphoria, it will split the community apart, and
eventually it will compete with the RDS version,
although Robert will still receive a royalty from our
product. What is your opinion on this? Would you be
against another company developing a separate version
of Euphoria?
---Chris
--
--
--
Ok, since you're asking for an open discussion, I'll
pipe in too. I'm first going to politely agree with
Robert. Your product would create competition with
RDS on the Windows platform. And if you are in fact
better at marketing software than RDS (as you implied)
the competition could be detrimental to ADS. Perhaps
not financially as you stated something about
Royalties, but he would have share control over the
product with his competition. Just as other companies
have to add feature X to match feature X in their
competitors product in order to compete.
That said, what is stopping you from making a new
BASIC interpreter? Or a new Pascal interpreter?
Maybe even a new C interpreter? The answer is of
course nothing. Just as the as answer to what is
stopping you from making a new EU interpreter is also
nothing.
But, you don't want to make a new interpreter.
Instead, it seems you want to stand on Robs shoulders
and hail your new wiz bang full of GUI goo IDE,
compiler, interpreter, as the next great thing. Shame
on you! If you want to build a better Eu experience,
a better interpreter, whatever, go for it. But don't
whine about the fact that you want to take Eu in a
direction that the current author/maintainer doesn't
want to go. It's his, and he has the right to keep
it, and to protect his interest in it.
BTW, if I sound to harsh, bummer. But the truth is,
I hope you do write a newer and better Eu. And in
turn, I hope Rob out does you with his own
newer/better improvements. Further, I hope that cycle
continues for a while. :)
--
Ronald Weidner
http://www.techport80.com
PHP Software developer for hire.
17. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Eucoder wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I totally agree with you that we do not need the source to create add-ons
> for Euphoria, and that would be great if Euphoria had a large user base.
> Unfortunately a few hundred people do not justify the time, effort, and
> money associated with releasing a product, especially when the product
> is a low ticket item. It would be better for my company to create our own
> flavor of EU with features not supported by the current version. It is not
> only an IDE, compiler, etc..etc I want to add. Myself and others have already
Why would you want a compiler? The Euphoria to C translator is close enough to
that already. You translate your code to C then "compile" it to a EXE or DLL/SO.
> come to realize EU is not going to progress as other languages because of
> the many limitations being put on it. Robert has released the source code,
> but there are limitations on how you use the RDS version. The public domain
> EU version is not then same as the RDS C version, and Robert purposely did
> that so there would not be any competition to RDS.
The Public Domain source and C source share virtually identical Euphoria coded
front-ends. The C version has an extention to the front-end to help it interface
with the C back-end. The Public Domain source has a back-end written completely
in Euphoria, while the C source has a highly optimized
C back-end. Profiling and advanced trace facility features have been omitted
from the Public Domain version.
Both versions are 100% compatable and the back-ends execute the same exact
intermediate language (IL) opcodes. The only difference is just exectution speed.
Lets not forget that RDS could of decided not to have given us the source at
all. After all, they did have to write a 2385 line Euphoria coded back- end, in
order to support the PD-source. It's even more generous that they offered it free
of charge and without license restrictions.
> Robert knows if he allows others to use the source code freely with no
> limitations whatsoever,
> other versions will surpass the RDS version overnight. In some ways I do not
> blame him, but if you are going to release a product as open source, do not
> put any limitations on it. I have a high esteem for Robert, but after 12
> years it is time to allow others to create their own flavors of the language.
>
Of course... Euphoria is Robert's pride, he'd be damned to let others take that
away from him! The C source code is more like "shared-source".
I don't see how Euphoria can really be surpassed. The only major feature the
language will need in the near future is thread-safety w/ modified + extended
task API that supports concurrency; 64-bit editions would be very nice too. But
other than those, a Mac port and minor improvements is good enough for awhile. I
mean, you can add hundreds of features and constructs to the language, but have
it turn out like Bach: ugly and undesirable.
> PS: The laws regarding source code is quite interesting. Although Robert has
> put limitations on how people can use the source, if someone alters it
> significantly, he cannot seek legal action. That is one of the reasons
> why you cannot patent source code.
>
> --Chris
I hope you don't decide to leave and settle with a lesser language. Euphoria is
as open as it will ever get while under RDS rule, I think
they made a good strive at opening up, while still remaining in control.
Regards,
Vincent
18. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Vincent wrote:
> I think one of the biggest reasons why the Euphoria community is so
> tiny, is because Eu doesn't come pre-packaged with a IDE, GUI library,
> GUI code editor; or any nice GUI examples. When people download &
> install Euphoria, they only notice a directory with numerous DOS
> examples and two extremely long/complex Windows GUI examples, that
> offer little. If they download the Linux version, they get no X-Windows
> GUI examples whatsoever. This almost instantly turns off most 21st
> century developers.
I think you are right, Vincent.
<snip>
> Perhaps a nice GUI interface for the translator and binder/shrouder?
> You would have to keep the prices low, since we already have these
> things, but perhaps your commercial solutions could be better.
I personally would never buy such a program. I have Total Commander,
which is a nice and powerful GUI interface for *every* existing and
future command line program.
[Public Domain Euphoria interpreter]
> According to Euman, the speed can be noticably improved with various
> minor optimizations in "execute.e".
Do you know whether Euman has published his faster version of "execute.e"?
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
19. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
> posted by: Eucoder <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Chris, please use *either* C Bouzy *or* Eucoder as sender when posting
messages here. Otherwise it's confusing. Thanks!
Why don't you port Euphoria to another platform? When you do so, RDS's
license gives many rights to you. There has been requests e.g. for a
port to Mac OS, and IMHO especially a port to PocketPC/Smartphone would
be very cool.
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
20. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Juergen Luethje wrote:
> Do you know whether Euman has published his faster version of "execute.e"?
Well he built & tested the Linux version of VEEU. He started playing with GCC
options in EMAKE and fiddled with execute.e. After conducting sieve benchmark
tests, he concluded that he increased performance as much as 100 percent with
modified compiler options and backend tweaks. I told him not to use the special
GCC options and backend optimzations, thinking a subtile bug could develop. So
there isn't any optimized version released that I'm aware of.
If he stops by the chatroom again, I'll ask him about it. Unfortuantly though, I
think he kinda lost interest in Euphoria.
Regards,
Vincent
21. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Instead of replying two or three different times, I am going to answer each
person via one post.
Ron Wrote: “But don't whine about the fact that you want to take Eu in
>a direction that the current author/maintainer doesn't want to go.
>It's his, and he has the right to keep it, and to protect his interest
>in it.”
I will not be as rude to you as you were to me. Robert has every right to
do as he pleases with his language. But if Robert is going to release
EU as OPEN SOURCE, then he needs to remove the restrictions off of it, and
not limit how it is used. What is the point of releasing something open
source and limit it only to the EU community or limit how it is used.
That is NOT the definition of open source. That is similar to someone giving
you a brand new car and telling you it’s yours, but limit how fast you can
drive it and where you can take it. As for the comment about whining,
let’s keep this discussion civil, and refrain from using the High School
insults.
Vincent wrote:” Why would you want a compiler? The Euphoria to C
>translator is close enough to that already. You translate your code to
>C then "compile" it to a EXE or DLL/SO.”
Vincent you and I are not going to agree on my plans for a hybrid version of
EU because you and I do not use EU for the same purposes. Furthermore, when
I look at a product I look at its COMMERCIAL value and how it can be
improved to be more appealing commercially. I do think EU can be improved
greatly not only internally but aesthetically as well.
Vincent wrote: “The Public Domain source and C source share virtually
>identical Euphoria coded front-ends. The C version has an extention to
>the front-end to help it interface with the C back-end. The Public
>Domain source has a back-end written completely in Euphoria, while the
>C source has a highly optimized C back-end. Profiling and advanced
>trace facility features have been omitted from the Public Domain
>version. Both versions are 100% compatable and the back-ends execute
>the same exact intermediate language (IL) opcodes. The only difference
>is just exectution speed.”
Not entirely true, I have had a few projects that run perfectly under the
RDS version of EU, but have errors when running on the public domain version
of EU. And I have seen projects created by others that have also crashed under
the open source version. Here is a perfect example: Download Elliott's
Bass library, and run the “Spectrum.exw” example under the RDS version of EU.
Click the screen of the window to change the spectrum style. As you can see
it works perfectly. Now run the same example under your own compiled version
of EU then click the screen, it will crash. That is just one example of how
both versions are not entirely the same.
Vincent wrote: “I hope you don't decide to leave and settle with a lesser
>language. Euphoria is as open as it will ever get while under RDS
>rule, I think they made a good strive at opening up, while still
>remaining in control”
Vincent have you ever wondered why the veterans of EU are no longer around?
I have been around here a since 2000, and I am not going to stop using EU.
To my knowledge I am the only one using EU outside of personal projects,
so it is obvious I believe in the language.
Juergen wrote: “Chris, please use *either* C Bouzy *or* Eucoder as sender
>when posting messages here. Otherwise it's confusing. Thanks!”
Juergen it is not my fault you are so easily confused. When I reply via
E-mail it is posted as C Bouzy, and when I reply via the RDS site it is Eucoder.
I cannot control that, nor am I interested in controlling that. 98% of the
people here know Eucoder and C Bouzy are one in the same, so I do not
understand why you are so confused.
Juergen wrote: “Why don't you port Euphoria to another platform?
>When you do so, RDS's license gives many rights to you. There has been
>requests e.g. for a port to Mac OS, and IMHO especially a port to
>PocketPC/Smartphone would be very cool.
Because I am not interested in those platforms.
Since everyone claims the public domain version of EU does not have any
limitations placed on it, I might create a C version based on that and
then go from there. The more I think about it the RDS version is not needed.
22. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Eucoder wrote:
> Since everyone claims the public domain version of EU does not have any
> limitations placed on it, I might create a C version based on that and
> then go from there. The more I think about it the RDS version is not needed.
You should think long and hard before you do that. Some basic design choices
were made long ago which limit Euphoria and make it more difficult
to use than it should be (in my opinion).
If you retain that design, you'll be limited, as well. If you abandon it,
you'll have created another language. And if you're looking at creating
another language, there are already some completely free and open-source
languages out there which you could use, add to, etc. Languages which are
just as fast as Euphoria, but without the limitations.
Irv
23. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Eucoder (C Bouzy) wrote:
<snip>
> Not entirely true, I have had a few projects that run perfectly under the=
> RDS version of EU, but have errors when running on the public domain vers=
ion
> of EU. And I have seen projects created by others that have also crashed =
under
> the open source version. Here is a perfect example: Download Elliott's
> Bass library, and run the =93Spectrum.exw=94 example under the RDS versio=
n of EU.
> Click the screen of the window to change the spectrum style. As you can s=
ee
> it works perfectly. Now run the same example under your own compiled vers=
ion
> of EU then click the screen, it will crash. That is just one example of h=
ow
> both versions are not entirely the same.
It looks as if you've found a bug. Maybe you can help RDS to fix it. Of
course both versions are not identical. Otherwise it would be one
version, not two different versions.
<snip>
> Juergen wrote: =93Chris, please use *either* C Bouzy *or* Eucoder as send=
er
>> when posting messages here. Otherwise it's confusing. Thanks!=94
>
> Juergen it is not my fault you are so easily confused.
I did not say that it's your fault.
> When I reply via
> E-mail it is posted as C Bouzy, and when I reply via the RDS site it is E=
ucoder.
> I cannot control that,
Oh? For some strange reason everyone else here manages to post with the
same name, so that we know to whom we are talking.
> nor am I interested in controlling that.
Now you are honest.
> 98% of the people here know Eucoder and C Bouzy are one in the same,
You made some statistics? Show me the data, please.
> so I do not understand why you are so confused.
It's not necessary that you understand the reason why.
I just told you the fact, and asked for a little politeness. I see
now that you do not want to be polite. No further discussion necessary.
> Juergen wrote: =93Why don't you port Euphoria to another platform?
>> When you do so, RDS's license gives many rights to you. There has been
>> requests e.g. for a port to Mac OS, and IMHO especially a port to
>> PocketPC/Smartphone would be very cool.
>
> Because I am not interested in those platforms.
>
> Since everyone claims the public domain version of EU does not have any
> limitations placed on it, I might create a C version based on that and
> then go from there. The more I think about it the RDS version is not need=
ed
You could e.g. make an Euphoria to Asm translator (based on the Public
Domain version of Eu if you want). Look at Pete Lomax' "Posetf".
If this were a commercial quality product, I certainly would buy it.
Regards,
Juergen
--
Get your facts first, and then
you can distort 'em as you please.
[Mark Twain]
24. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
irv mullins wrote:
> Eucoder wrote:
>
>> Since everyone claims the public domain version of EU does not have any
>> limitations placed on it, I might create a C version based on that and
>> then go from there. The more I think about it the RDS version is not needed.
>
> You should think long and hard before you do that. Some basic design choices
> were made long ago which limit Euphoria and make it more difficult
> to use than it should be (in my opinion).
Irv, just out of curiosity, and because I think I can learn a lot from
you: Can you give an eample?
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
25. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Eucoder wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:” Why would you want a compiler? The Euphoria to C
> >translator is close enough to that already. You translate your code to
> >C then "compile" it to a EXE or DLL/SO.”
>
> Vincent you and I are not going to agree on my plans for a hybrid version of
> EU because you and I do not use EU for the same purposes. Furthermore, when
> I look at a product I look at its COMMERCIAL value and how it can be
> improved to be more appealing commercially. I do think EU can be improved
> greatly not only internally but aesthetically as well.
We agree that we disagree with eachother. 
> Vincent wrote: “The Public Domain source and C source share virtually
> >identical Euphoria coded front-ends. The C version has an extention to
> >the front-end to help it interface with the C back-end. The Public
> >Domain source has a back-end written completely in Euphoria, while the
> >C source has a highly optimized C back-end. Profiling and advanced
> >trace facility features have been omitted from the Public Domain
> >version. Both versions are 100% compatable and the back-ends execute
> >the same exact intermediate language (IL) opcodes. The only difference
> >is just exectution speed.”
>
> Not entirely true, I have had a few projects that run perfectly under the
> RDS version of EU, but have errors when running on the public domain version
> of EU. And I have seen projects created by others that have also crashed under
> the open source version. Here is a perfect example: Download Elliott's
> Bass library, and run the “Spectrum.exw” example under the RDS version of EU.
> Click the screen of the window to change the spectrum style. As you can see
>
> it works perfectly. Now run the same example under your own compiled version
>
> of EU then click the screen, it will crash. That is just one example of how
> both versions are not entirely the same.
OK... there is a "better" call-back system in the PD-source than in the C
backend. The PD-source uses Matt Lewis's infinate argument callback machine code,
where as the C version is limited to 9. This was done because the other version
was not working with the PD-source. The reason RDS isn't considering it in the C
backend is because it is machine coded and limited to the x86 architecture (for
now).
The PD-source has a few known bugs to date, I'll see if I can reproduce it. If
indeed it's a new unknown bug, it shall be sqaushed soon enough! 
> Vincent wrote: “I hope you don't decide to leave and settle with a lesser
> >language. Euphoria is as open as it will ever get while under RDS
> >rule, I think they made a good strive at opening up, while still
> >remaining in control”
>
> Vincent have you ever wondered why the veterans of EU are no longer around?
> I have been around here a since 2000, and I am not going to stop using EU.
> To my knowledge I am the only one using EU outside of personal projects,
> so it is obvious I believe in the language.
Good, I'm glad you will stay.
I left Euphoria for about two weeks to Java and C#; I came running back here
before you can "supercalifragilistic".
Regards,
Vincent
26. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
irv mullins wrote:
>
> If you retain that design, you'll be limited, as well. If you abandon it,
> you'll have created another language. And if you're looking at creating
> another language, there are already some completely free and open-source
> languages out there which you could use, add to, etc. Languages which are
> just as fast as Euphoria, but without the limitations.
>
> Irv
There are languages which are as fast or faster, but they are JITed or
traditional compiled. Euphoria blows away almost any interpreted language and
some compiled languages in terms of speed. Euphoria blows many compiled languages
away with the Euphoria to C translator option.
If your using that Qu language, your pretty limited yourself: It only runs on
Linux. They might be working on a Windows version too, but they dont have it yet.
Euphoria's execution is signficantly faster when comparing the available
benchmarks on that site. If they used Eu 2.5, the results would be even better,
since 2.5 has slighty faster execution speed. It seems the JIT option barely
outperforms the interpreter (even less so with v2.5), but once again, the
translator would fry it easy, to tasty bacon.
BTW, I found a new interpreted language simular to Qu (I think) called Gentee.
They plan a Linux version. Euphoria is only 55 times faster.
euphoria 55.00
pliant 38.24
gforth 34.67
parrot 8.72
ocamlb 8.10
poplisp 7.78
erlang 3.63
lua 2.99
pike 2.51
python 1.81
icon 1.72
perl 1.59
elastic 1.54
guile 1.40
cygperl 1.35
gentee 1.00 <--
ruby 0.94
mawk 0.93
vbscript 0.81
php 0.39
jscript 0.34
tcl 0.31
gawk 0.16
rexx 0.16
Cheers,
Vincent
27. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Nov 26, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 27, 2005
Eucoder wrote:
> Juergen wrote: “Chris, please use *either* C Bouzy *or* Eucoder as sender
> >when posting messages here. Otherwise it's confusing. Thanks!”
>
> Juergen it is not my fault you are so easily confused. When I reply via
> E-mail it is posted as C Bouzy, and when I reply via the RDS site it is
> Eucoder.
> I cannot control that, nor am I interested in controlling that.
On the RDS EUforum main page,
you just have to click "Change Settings".
Set your name to C Bouzy, and maybe add a signature
while you're in there.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
28. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Nov 26, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 27, 2005
Eucoder wrote:
> Vincent wrote: “The Public Domain source and C source share virtually
> >identical Euphoria coded front-ends. The C version has an extention to
> >the front-end to help it interface with the C back-end. The Public
> >Domain source has a back-end written completely in Euphoria, while the
> >C source has a highly optimized C back-end. Profiling and advanced
> >trace facility features have been omitted from the Public Domain
> >version. Both versions are 100% compatable and the back-ends execute
> >the same exact intermediate language (IL) opcodes. The only difference
> >is just exectution speed.”
>
> Not entirely true, I have had a few projects that run perfectly under the
> RDS version of EU, but have errors when running on the public domain version
> of EU. And I have seen projects created by others that have also crashed under
> the open source version. Here is a perfect example: Download Elliott's
> Bass library, and run the “Spectrum.exw” example under the RDS version of EU.
> Click the screen of the window to change the spectrum style. As you can see
>
> it works perfectly. Now run the same example under your own compiled version
>
> of EU then click the screen, it will crash. That is just one example of how
> both versions are not entirely the same.
I believe the difference is caused by application programmer error
in not choosing the correct calling convention
(CDECL vs STDCALL) in his define_c_func()/proc() statements.
This issue has come up before on this list.
Basically, the programmer has a bug in his Euphoria code, but due
to a fluke in the way that Watcom generates machine code,
the bug, in most situations, won't cause a crash, as long as
you use the exw.exe interpreter (which I build using Watcom),
or you build your own PD source interpreter by translating,
and compiling with Watcom. Using Borland (or Lcc) exposes the
programmer's error.
Do you have any other examples?
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
29. Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Nov 26, 2005
-
Last edited Nov 27, 2005
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> I believe the difference is caused by application programmer error
> in not choosing the correct calling convention
> (CDECL vs STDCALL) in his define_c_func()/proc() statements.
> This issue has come up before on this list.
> Basically, the programmer has a bug in his Euphoria code, but due
> to a fluke in the way that Watcom generates machine code,
> the bug, in most situations, won't cause a crash, as long as
> you use the exw.exe interpreter (which I build using Watcom),
> or you build your own PD source interpreter by translating,
> and compiling with Watcom. Using Borland (or Lcc) exposes the
> programmer's error.
>
> Do you have any other examples?
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
I tried the program on VEEU for Windows, which was built with Open Watcom v1.3;
it still crashed.
Regards,
Vincent
