1. plans for EU
- Posted by Critic Mar 30, 2009
- 1189 views
I know, I am nasty again, hopefully, it will start a constructive discussion, nevertheless...
Also, EU's target is no longer hobby programmers. EU is a general purpose programming language suitable for a wide variety of tasks.
Oh really? How come that any piece of EU code I look at is full of workarounds? Workarounds because reference semantics are missing? Or exceptions? Or OOP? And don't let me get started about the weird type system that allows to specify scalar values (somewhat) but not really the structure of a sequence (which would be more important). No other language uses such a system, there might be a reason for it? But of course if "suitable" means that it can be done somehow, you are right, EU is Turing complete after all...
There are commercial applications written in Euphoria and commercial quality apps. Many of us also use Euphoria in our work place for mission critical tasks.
Yes. This is frightening 
and no criteria for the quality of a language: The same can be said about Perl and Perl does not even get subroutine calls right. - On the other hand, Perl has references. Hm.
So, after this bashing, ask yourself: How and why do think EU might become popular? It's just another (inefficient) dynamically typed language. It is just another scripting language with its own design flaws, some of them quite severe. There are already enough of that. The language has not taken off for 16 years. It attracts newbies that seem to leave once they have learnt programming. Why should this change? As soon as you implemented OOP, exceptions and references you can only hope EU is still a simple or at least coherent language.
2. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by DanM Mar 30, 2009
- 1141 views
I know, I am nasty again, hopefully, it will start a constructive discussion, nevertheless...
Also, EU's target is no longer hobby programmers. EU is a general purpose programming language suitable for a wide variety of tasks.
Oh really? How come that any piece of EU code I look at is full of workarounds? Workarounds because reference semantics are missing? Or exceptions? Or OOP? And don't let me get started about the weird type system that allows to specify scalar values (somewhat) but not really the structure of a sequence (which would be more important). No other language uses such a system, there might be a reason for it? But of course if "suitable" means that it can be done somehow, you are right, EU is Turing complete after all...
There are commercial applications written in Euphoria and commercial quality apps. Many of us also use Euphoria in our work place for mission critical tasks.
Yes. This is frightening and no criteria for the quality of a language: The same can be said about Perl and Perl does not even get subroutine calls right. - On the other hand, Perl has references. Hm.
So, after this bashing, ask yourself: How and why do think EU might become popular? It's just another (inefficient) dynamically typed language. It is just another scripting language with its own design flaws, some of them quite severe. There are already enough of that. The language has not taken off for 16 years. It attracts newbies that seem to leave once they have learnt programming. Why should this change? As soon as you implemented OOP, exceptions and references you can only hope EU is still a simple or at least coherent language.
Why don't you just make your points without being nasty?
Dan
3. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1094 views
Oh really? How come that any piece of EU code I look at is full of workarounds? Workarounds because reference semantics are missing? Or exceptions? Or OOP? And don't let me get started about the weird type system that allows to specify scalar values (somewhat) but not really the structure of a sequence (which would be more important). No other language uses such a system, there might be a reason for it?
I think we're all wondering why you're still here. I suppose you enjoy feeling superior to others, and want to convince them that your feelings are well founded and correct. I think we all understand that euphoria doesn't suit your programming needs, and probably never will.
There are commercial applications written in Euphoria and commercial quality apps. Many of us also use Euphoria in our work place for mission critical tasks.
Yes. This is frightening and no criteria for the quality of a language: The same can be said about Perl and Perl does not even get subroutine calls right. - On the other hand, Perl has references. Hm.
So, after this bashing, ask yourself: How and why do think EU might become popular? It's just another (inefficient) dynamically typed language. It is just another scripting language with its own design flaws, some of them quite severe. There are already enough of that. The language has not taken off for 16 years. It attracts newbies that seem to leave once they have learnt programming. Why should this change? As soon as you implemented OOP, exceptions and references you can only hope EU is still a simple or at least coherent language.
Yes, we understand that you are unable to do anything useful without OOP, exceptions and references. You've made this perfectly clear. I think we've heard this enough to understand that. Please go troll perl forums or something.
Matt
4. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by Critic Mar 30, 2009
- 1113 views
Yes, we understand that you are unable to do anything useful without OOP, exceptions and references. You've made this perfectly clear.
The funny thing is that the core developers want to implement these features too! You basically agree with me and yet cannot admit it!
Tell me then, why do you want to implement the features?! I thought it is only my "feelings" EU needs them.
5. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by ChrisB (moderator) Mar 30, 2009
- 1102 views
I think we're all wondering why you're still here. I suppose you enjoy feeling superior to others, and want to convince them that your feelings are well founded and correct. I think we all understand that euphoria doesn't suit your programming needs, and probably never will.
<snip>
Yes, we understand that you are unable to do anything useful without OOP, exceptions and references. You've made this perfectly clear. I think we've heard this enough to understand that. Please go troll perl forums or something.
Matt
Hi Critic
I too am wondering why you are still here. Your "constuctive criticisms" are never constructive, you have no feel for the language, you don't enjoy using it, you think its an immature hobbyist language unfit for the real world, and yet you keep coming back to denegrate and insult it and the hard work of the developers.
I myself use euphoria because its simple. Thats it. My contributions have been minor, I have been jocular, drunk and on occasion inappropriate on this forum, but never out and out nasty as you are.
I was just curious, what contributions have you made to other languages, what programs have you written in other language which demonstrate the superiority of those languages? Just curious. In other words, lets see your form, your qualifications that allow you to spout this vitriol.
Chris
PS, I would urge all others to simply ignore this poster from now on, but I too had to have my say.
6. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1086 views
Yes, we understand that you are unable to do anything useful without OOP, exceptions and references. You've made this perfectly clear.
The funny thing is that the core developers want to implement these features too! You basically agree with me and yet cannot admit it!
Tell me then, why do you want to implement the features?! I thought it is only my "feelings" EU needs them.
See if you can tell the difference between these two statements (hint: others can!):
- I think euphoria would be better if it had feature X. I'd be more productive in the following ways...
- Euphoria is missing feature X. Euphoria is fine for unserious people, but it should not be used by anyone who has a clue about real programming.
Matt
7. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by Critic Mar 30, 2009
- 1077 views
I too am wondering why you are still here. Your "constuctive criticisms" are never constructive, ...
Look at the documentation then. It has been improved due to my criticism. So it has been constructive. Whether or not you agree does not matter. That's the nice thing about facts, you know.
I myself use euphoria because its simple. Thats it.
Well, it won't remain simple, so EU's main selling point is fading.
I was just curious, what contributions have you made to other languages, what programs have you written in other language which demonstrate the superiority of those languages? Just curious. In other words, lets see your form, your qualifications that allow you to spout this vitriol.
Well, I could be just a script kiddie (I am not, however) - it would not make my arguments wrong. Often I have valid points about technical stuff. That's why the developers have problems with me and attempt to say it is only my personal opinion. It's not. Find me another language that transforms O(1) into O(n) operations for 16 years without anybody noticing! EU really is a hobbist's language, no one can deny this seriously. Sorry. Truth hurts, I know.
8. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1074 views
Find me another language that transforms O(1) into O(n) operations for 16 years without anybody noticing!
You're still the only one who has noticed. I recall Derek asking for an example, so that it could be fixed. You never replied (that I noticedif I missed it, I'd happily accept a link). I'm interested, too.
Maybe you're referring to copy on write, and passing sequences around? As Derek showed, if this is a problem, there are different ways to do things to avoid this penalty. You can write fortran code in any language, but that doesn't mean that you should. Again, we all understand that this sort of coding is unacceptable to your refined palette. It's not such a problem for the philistines in this neck of the woods.
You've made it clear that interpreted languages are too slow to be useful for you, and that they're all wrong about tons of stuff, anyways. If you would be so kind, please let us know what languages are acceptable for us to use. Please do remember to type slowly, so that we can follow you.
Matt
IHBT
9. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by Trixar_za Mar 30, 2009
- 1185 views
Hmmm, I might be a newbie here, but I think your complaints are invalid Critic. If you so want to see these features then implement them yourself. I've met allot of critics in my life and the one thing I found is that they complain about something they aren't doing a damn thing to fix themselves. This is the idea behind open source, to allow many different people to add their own contribution to the greater whole - YOU could be helping to make it better, yet it seems you'd rather complain smugly (while you lack the skill to even WRITE a language of your own) without giving any real feedback. If you really wanted to help, you would show examples of these 'bugs' you find so that they can be fixed or you know what? FIX THEM YOURSELF. Yes, I know it's a very big concept to swallow, but instead of trolling do something about it and don't use the "It ain't my problem", because unless your doing something actively to correct it, then yes it IS your problem.
Sorry, if I'm ranting, but I hate lazy cowards that troll rather than actually put some effort in instead of just complaining!
10. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1147 views
I know, I am nasty again, hopefully, it will start a constructive discussion, nevertheless...
It will not from me. I have resolved to simply ignore your nasty posts. There is no reason for them and no hope of any good to come from it.
I encourage everyone else to do the same. If nice messages can be written, then I will participate, otherwise, I have better things to do.
Jeremy
11. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by Critic Mar 30, 2009
- 1113 views
You're still the only one who has noticed. I recall Derek asking for an example, so that it could be fixed. You never replied (that I noticedif I missed it, I'd happily accept a link). I'm interested, too.
I refer to the "rot" operation of his stack implementation. I am sure you remember.
Maybe you're referring to copy on write, and passing sequences around? As Derek showed, if this is a problem, there are different ways to do things to avoid this penalty.
It cannot be resolved right now. Matt, is spreading FUD all you can do?
You can write fortran code in any language, but that doesn't mean that you should.
Completely besides the point as the rest of your post.
12. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by Critic Mar 30, 2009
- 1142 views
Hmmm, I might be a newbie here, but I think your complaints are invalid Critic. If you so want to see these features then implement them yourself.
The problem is not implementing them. The problem is to stop the core developers adding crap like an ugly "switch without fallthru" statement.
While you lack the skill to even WRITE a language of your own...
No. I lack the time.
13. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1129 views
You're still the only one who has noticed. I recall Derek asking for an example, so that it could be fixed. You never replied (that I noticedif I missed it, I'd happily accept a link). I'm interested, too.
I refer to the "rot" operation of his stack implementation. I am sure you remember.
Which was benchmarked, and found to be O(1) thanks to optimizations that Eu did.
Maybe you're referring to copy on write, and passing sequences around? As Derek showed, if this is a problem, there are different ways to do things to avoid this penalty.
It cannot be resolved right now. Matt, is spreading FUD all you can do?
Apparently it is all that you can do. Like I said above, it was shown to be resolved in Derek's own implementation.
14. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1149 views
You're still the only one who has noticed. I recall Derek asking for an example, so that it could be fixed. You never replied (that I noticedif I missed it, I'd happily accept a link). I'm interested, too.
I refer to the "rot" operation of his stack implementation. I am sure you remember.
Yes, I recall that. And I also recall that you had some invalid assumptions about how it worked.
Maybe you're referring to copy on write, and passing sequences around? As Derek showed, if this is a problem, there are different ways to do things to avoid this penalty.
It cannot be resolved right now. Matt, is spreading FUD all you can do?
You can write fortran code in any language, but that doesn't mean that you should.
Completely besides the point as the rest of your post.
Only in your fantasy world. Look, please don't project your communication issues upon the rest of us.
Matt
15. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1145 views
- Last edited Mar 31, 2009
Critic,
We have been very forgiving of your very harsh communication, attitude, name calling and all sorts of other garbage that should have no place in any constructive communication. Please stop this or I will place a ban on your account. We do not mind you critising Euphoria or offering good suggestions but you are far, far beyond that line and it must stop. We are not going to put up with it any longer.
If you begin to act like an adult who knows how work with others, you can stay.
Jeremy
16. Re: plans for EU
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Mar 30, 2009
- 1141 views
- Last edited Mar 31, 2009
I know, I am nasty again ...
Why is that, Critic? I am not an expert in the subject but you give the appearance of someone who has a psychological makeup that enjoys hurting people. I suspect that you are also a person who has been hurt too, and if so I'm truly sorry. That does not excuse your behaviour though. I believe that if one treats people kindly that, on the balance, one will also be treated better. Of course there will be some people who are so damaged that they are incapable of being a nice, but Critic, you can be mentally strong enough to resist those types.
I'm also saddened that you feel so frightened that you are not comfortable in using your real name. I guess you use the alias "Critic" because it closely matches your urge to lash out and criticize things without thought to the feelings of those people being criticized. The alias is a way to protect yourself from reprisals from people you are hurting. Maybe if you didn't hurt people you wouldn't have to hide. Of course, there could very well be another reason to keep your name secret, but I'm not getting anything from the way you present yourself here.
... hopefully, it will start a constructive discussion, nevertheless...
Me too, but by not being nasty you are almost guaranteed to have a constructive discussion. You really must try being pleasant for often.
To have a discussion, there must be dialogue and not simply monologue. In this response I'm writing, I have asked you some questions, which are not rhetorical - I really do not know that answers and I'd like you to help answer them.
Also, EU's target is no longer hobby programmers. EU is a general purpose programming language suitable for a wide variety of tasks.
Oh really? How come that any piece of EU code I look at is full of workarounds?
Do you actually mean, literally "any piece of EU code"? Or could it be that you have seen some code that you think is poor, and generalized that impression to all Euphoria code?
Workarounds because reference semantics are missing? Or exceptions? Or OOP?
Are you inferring that any code that does not use pass-by-reference, and/or exceptions, and/or OOP must necessarily be hobby work? I'm sure it would not be too hard to come up with some counter examples, but I'll leave that for you to research first.
And don't let me get started about the weird type system that allows to specify scalar values (somewhat) but not really the structure of a sequence (which would be more important). No other language uses such a system, there might be a reason for it?
Yes, Euphoria has a weird type system, if by "weird" one means unusual or uncommon.
I'm sure that your idea of what is a scalar, and thus what is a vector, has been misinformed. The 'atom' type is a scalar in that it has a magnitude only, but the 'sequence' type is definitely a vector. In programming terms, a vector is a one-dimensional array, that is "A data structure consisting of a series of contiguous storage locations which are accessed via an integer offset from the address of the first storage location".
Euphoria does allow one to specify the structure of a sequence. It does using a syntax which is different from many languages, but it does do it. It has been argued, that the current Euphoria syntax is not as helpful as it could be, and that is a topic of curent discussion in the development team. I expect that a future Euphoria will provide more assistance in this area that will make Euphoria even simpler to use.
But of course if "suitable" means that it can be done somehow, you are right, EU is Turing complete after all...
This looks like at an attempt at sarcasm but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are saying something seriously.
I don't believe that Jeremy meant "suitable" using the definition you supplied. I think he meant that the Euphoria language is an appropriate choice for many, but not all, programming tasks. And that can be said of most programming languages. Very few languages are suitable for only a small subset of programming tasks.
There are commercial applications written in Euphoria and commercial quality apps. Many of us also use Euphoria in our work place for mission critical tasks.
Yes. This is frightening and no criteria for the quality of a language:
What do you base that assertion on? I'm not frightened by people using Euphoria for commerial or mission critical tasks, just based on them using Euphoria alone. More frightening is the manner in which one programs rather than the tool one uses. For example, many important C/C applications are failing due to programmers not being careful with their coding. The use of C/C requires considerable disciple on the part of the coder that Euphoria handles for you. I would argue that by using Euphoria over C/C is a wiser move in many cases, just because Euphoria is a safer language - it takes some serious effort to code buffer overruns in Euphoria.
The same can be said about Perl and Perl does not even get subroutine calls right. - On the other hand, Perl has references. Hm.
This goes back to my earlier question about your feeling that "references" are the mark of a serious programming language. Do you honestly believe that?
So, after this bashing, ask yourself: How and why do think EU might become popular?
Why "bashing"? Why don't you try to be friendly? Your apparent aggression is not helping your arguments.
Anyhow, this is a very relevant and timely question. Another related question is, do we want Euphoria to become popular?
I imagine that for Euphoria to be popular, it must 'scratch an itch' and be known to do so. I'm sure it would be one of the tools in general use once it overcomes its dated image. It is not dated, but by it assuming a MS-DOS world as the primary one, it appears to be dated. The v4.0 edition has done much to distance itself from the MS-DOS paradigm and that operating system is now one of many it operates under.
Updated articles and documentation are sorely needed. If you have a talent for writing such it would be very welcome. Once version 4 is released and settled in, we should try to get an article into one of the major programming magazines. An article that puts forward the case for Euphoria.
There will always be people to which Euphoria is so different from their current safe-place that they will never see it as a useful tool. It is no use pitching to that type of person.
It's just another (inefficient) dynamically typed language.
I don't believe you are correct, and to what are you comparing Euphoria with? Have you seen or done benchmarks with other dynamically typed languages? From memory, Euphoria is distinctly faster, but I haven't seen any recent benchmarks.
It is just another scripting language with its own design flaws, some of them quite severe.
Name a programming language, which is in general usage, that does not have serious design flaws.
There are already enough of that. The language has not taken off for 16 years. It attracts newbies that seem to leave once they have learnt programming.
If this is true, then at the very least Euphoria has been useful in teaching people how to program. Are there any other languages that are still current and at least 16-years old that have not taken off? Are those languages worthy of dismissal?
Why should this change? As soon as you implemented OOP, exceptions and references you can only hope EU is still a simple or at least coherent language.
Yes, that is a large challenge. It is doable though. Will you help us or not?
