OpenEuphoria

2. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by ssallen Oct 18, 2012
• 4489 views

Heh, I'm in favor... time to upgrade my compiler anyway. :)

4. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by ssallen Oct 19, 2012
• 4444 views

---

6.4.2 C Compilers Supported The Translator currently works with GNU C on Unix-like OSes, GNU C on Windows from MinGW or Cygwin using the -gcc option and with Watcom C (the default) on Windows. These are all free compilers.

GNU C will exist already on your Unix system. The others can be downloaded from their respective Web sites.

---

Obviously openwatcom would be removed but you can still use MinGW or Cygwin.

6. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 20, 2012
• 4358 views

Do a Google search for "Watcom 64 bit"; It seems silly to continue to support a compiler for just one (arguably soon to be dead) architecture on one operating system, when there are GCC ports for every OS and architecture imaginable..

8. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by ghaberek (admin) Oct 20, 2012
• 4307 views

No 64-bit compiling? Who do these people think they are?! LOL

That's a good enough reason right there!

At the very least, we'll need a solid Wiki article on setting up the MinGW/MSYS environment. It's not that hard to get running but it can be troublesome if you're in a mixed environment. I had the hardest time tracking down issues because I had Strawberry Perl installed for another project.

Plus you'll want the C++ compiler if you need to configure/make/make install various other libraries, like wxEuphoria.

-Greg

10. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by DonCole Oct 20, 2012
• 4216 views

No, No, Nay!

KEEP the support.

It works good and lasts a long time.

Don Cole

12. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by boater Oct 20, 2012
• 4273 views

I've recently come back to Euphoria after a long break. Watcom seems to work just fine in 32 bit mode (I'm using Win 7, but with XP in VirtualBox). My vote: keep it.

14. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by DominiqueB Oct 20, 2012
• 4250 views

i'm for keepping Watcom, beeing the default when installing the package, i just have to download and it's ok to compile to .exe !

Please keep it !

Dominique

16. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 21, 2012
• 4185 views

So far, 4 votes to keep, 5 votes to drop. Let the voting continue!

18. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 22, 2012
• 4125 views

Does it work with MinGW though? This might be a common bug on that OS that just needs to be fixed, period.

Forked into: MinGW

20. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by K_D_R Oct 23, 2012
• 4084 views

Remove OpenWatcom support. In my opinion the developers are stretched pretty thin - witness the lag in Linux bug fixes and 64 bit support.

22. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 23, 2012
• 4060 views

We've had 64bit support for a while, in pre-alpha status.

http://openeuphoria.org/eubins/linux/4.1.0/64-bit/ http://openeuphoria.org/eubins/windows/4.1.0/64-bit/

We even have ARM support.

http://openeuphoria.org/eubins/linux/4.1.0/arm-32-bit/

24. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 23, 2012
• 3999 views

Now 4 votes to keep, 7 votes to drop.

26. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by useless_ Oct 23, 2012
• 3998 views

I see no ticket for it, but Matt was working on it per discussions on irc, to an unknown degree. There was a leak in gets() and a big leak in using dlls. These were cumulative and could eat all my available memory.

Do you really want to go thru it with me again about why i don't file bug reports?

useless

28. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by useless_ Oct 23, 2012
• 3998 views

That doesn't reference the dll leak.

useless

30. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 23, 2012
• 3967 views

Yes...I've got a bunch of changes sitting on my drive, and some more that need to be made. They'll make it in, but they aren't ready yet.

Matt

32. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 24, 2012
• 3852 views

I'll vote for keep watcom if possible. Check the v405 download count for with watcom, tells us something!

34. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 24, 2012
• 3878 views

Our numbers don't come anywhere near these two compilers, however...

36. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by SDPringle Oct 25, 2012
• 3776 views

7 to drop 5 to keep

It seems the 'drop' votes have it here. I am sure we will get complaints later for those who never went to the forum before. Too bad we don't have users vote for things on install...

[ ] Install Core 
[ ] Install Docs 
[ ] Install Tests 
Votes: 
[ ] Drop Support for Watcom C next version? 
[ ] Don't bother setting EUDIR next version? 
[ ] Add a C style #ifdef style system to EUPHORIA in next version? 
[ ] Use reference values into a hidden sequence for map and friends? 
 
[Continue]  [Cancel] 

[ ] Install Core 
[ ] Install Docs 
[ ] Install Tests 
Votes: 
[ ] Drop Support for Watcom C next version? 
[ ] Don't bother setting EUDIR next version? 
[ ] Add a C style #ifdef style system to EUPHORIA in next version? 
[ ] Use reference values into a hidden sequence for map and friends? 
 
[Continue]  [Cancel] 

38. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jaygade Oct 25, 2012
• 3758 views

I'd be happy for a non-installer zip file of the Windows version of Euphoria to be listed alongside the other releases.

I mostly use Linux now so I don't care too much about Watcom. But I would like to run Euphoria occasionally on Windows computers for which I do not have admin rights to install (like at work).

However, that IS a situation which I can fix if I plan ahead by installing to a thumb drive (I've done that before too.)

Still, it would be nice.

[ ] Install Core 
[ ] Install Docs 
[ ] Install Tests 
Votes: 
[ ] Drop Support for Watcom C next version? 
[ ] Don't bother setting EUDIR next version? 
[ ] Add a C style #ifdef style system to EUPHORIA in next version? 
[ ] Use reference values into a hidden sequence for map and friends? 
 
[Continue]  [Cancel] 

40. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by gbonvehi Oct 25, 2012
• 3723 views

My vote is to remove OpenWatcom. As it doesn't support 64-bit, it's mantaining code to compile on one Platform targeting one architecture.

If I have time I'll try to investigate the needed changes to make Euphoria work with Microsoft compiler which is freely included with the Windows SDK as it supports both 32 and 64-bit and has no restrictions on what you can produce with it.

Cheers, Guillermo

Edit: As it seems a lot of people prefer the bundled version and I'm sure windows sdk cannot be bundled, does anyone has anything to say about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang ? From what I've read in the license, it may be what we are looking for. Also there's Pelles C compiler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelles_C Anyway, I think still the best option is MingW.

42. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by useless_ Oct 25, 2012
• 3655 views

And who can afford to buy the MS SDK? Or put up with MS killing support in it for winxp next year?

useless

44. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 26, 2012
• 3616 views

I think the problem with that would be that the reasons for the votes should count more than the votes themselves. Here, there are 3 votes for either side giving absolutely no reason why. An additional two votes for on each side state nothing more than it works/doesn't work.
One vote for Watcom states that "It can compile to .exe", and another says that "people are still downloading it" (no offense, but neither of these make any sense as reasons).

This leaves 5 votes against Watcom, due to lack of 64-bit support and/or taxing of developer time; and one for it, stating that it is easier to use.
Indeed, documentation does need to be written both on installing MinGW and migrating from OW to GCC- but this should not be significantly harder to set up (or bundle, if need be) than it was for OW.

MinGW is a port of GCC to native Windows (as opposed to the Cygwin version of GCC, which uses a POSIX emulation layer); MinGW is no less "native" than Watcom, which is a port originally from 16-bit DOS.

The debugger in GCC is called GDB. GCC doesn't have a resource editor though; if that component is useful, we should indeed look for a substitute. (Since those tools aren't specific to compilers, it should be possible to use the Watcom resource editor with GCC-compiled programs if you wanted to; though it might support only 32-bit binaries).

Which just tells us that most Eu users run Windows; comparing it with the other Windows versions (4.0.4, since there are too few stats for the newer version) shows that about 49% get the non-OW installer, 36% get the OW installer, and 15% get the zip (which doesn't include OW). (About 6% of these are Linux and Mac users; so people aren't necessarily downloading the correct versions anyway)

Neither MS nor Pelles are open-source, which might pose licensing issues bundling them with an OSS project. LLVM (Clang) is starting to compete with GCC, but I don't think theres a Windows port yet.

46. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by BRyan Oct 26, 2012
• 3537 views

KEEP OPENWATCOM SUPPORT.

I posted here because I don't know where to vote ?

48. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
• 3596 views

It's getting close now.

7 votes to keep, 8 votes to drop, 1 vote to be neutral.

50. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 26, 2012
• 3580 views

What does that mean? Do I have to formally vote here because my vote on the dev list isn't counted?

In any case, I vote to drop Watcom support.

The main problems with Watcom are ...

• that it does not currently, or in the foreseeable future, support 64-bit CPU architectures, which are now commonplace. It does support 64-bit integers but not in native CPU form. They are emulated using 32-bit registers. It does not support 64-bit addressing.
• it does not support the newer versions of the C programming standard (see Version 2.0 and C99 Compliance)
• it is not being developed under a frequent release policy (thus updates and bug fixes are slow to arrive). The latest release is currently June 2010.

52. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
• 3582 views

No, actually I intended the opposite: the vote on the dev list counts, but the vote here does not.

No one is against you making your case for (or, as the case may be, against) Watcom here. Actually, doing so is probably a really good idea, as not everyone here may have seen your arguments on the dev list.

Anyways, I guess it doesn't really matter which vote is counted. The point is that you only get to have one vote counted.

Agreed.

54. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by _tom (admin) Oct 26, 2012
• 3559 views

Is "removing OpenWatcom compiler support" the correct question?

On Linux the gcc compiler is usually pre-installed; run #euc# and you get a compiled program.

I suspect that Windows users only care about the same thing; run euc get a compiled program.

Comparing the performance of compilers (netbook N450 ):

OS	Compiler	Installed size	compile time	executable
win	openwatcom	45 MB	32 s	695 KB
win	mingw	167	106 s	912 KB
linux	gcc		79 s	770 KB

So Windows users get a good deal using OpenWatcom, as long as they do not need 64 bit.

As a Linux user trying out Windows I discovered that installing mingw is not that hard (thanks form members for the help.)

My question to Windows users:

• does OpenWatcom have compelling advantages for you?
• as long as a compiler is easy to install do you care which one it is?
• are you voting for a bundled Euphoria-compiler package or are you voting for the actual OpenWatcom compiler?

My choice is to drop OpenWatcom (Linux bias), thus less work for developers, thus making more happy developers--we all like happy developers.

56. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 27, 2012
• 3498 views

Hi Tom,
you are on the money re Watcom support; I voted to keep it if possible because:
Its bundled with Eu, and it just works. EUC -wat source.exw = done.
Don't have to download, and worse, setup other packages. Lazy I know, but there it is.
Its small and fast, upx makes it even smaller.
I wonder how may downloaders of the non-watcom eu405 version did so because they didn't intend to compile but bind or interpret only?
Is there a licence issue with bundling GCC with Euphoria?

Regards,
Alan

58. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by kenneth Oct 27, 2012
• 3502 views

The MinGW installer is not like Watcom. It's a small executable that contains none of the compiler's files. When run, it goes to the web to obtain files that are missing or need to be updated, much like a "make" operation. It will even update itself when a modified installer becomes available. I suggest de-emphasizing compilation when describing euphoria to the casual user. The pro's who need it will know how to get it.

60. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by SDPringle Oct 29, 2012
• 3431 views

I just want to point out that one could make a EUPHORIA package for MinGW and try to get it into the distribution. This is the way to do it. I don't expect anyone else will but that's only my opinion. Speaking only for myself, if there is no Watcom support, I am content with leaving users with the option of installing their compiler separately from EUPHORIA.

Shawn Pringle

62. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by BRyan Oct 31, 2012
• 3328 views

What happen to my VOTE TO KEEP ?

64. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 31, 2012
• 3298 views

BTW, has anybody pinged Rob Craig on the dropping 32 bit support?
I'd like to hear his views on the current direction of Euphoria, even if he can't veto anything.
My impression from the readme's in his closed source versions was he was proud of the mean and lean mantra.
I even recall him saying not for a million bucks would Euphoria have a "goto"! Not trolling, just saying - I don't use it by choice.
Regards,
Alan

66. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 31, 2012
• 3308 views

Hi Matt,
sorry I meant dropping support of the "32bit only" compiler Watcom, not the language internals.
Is Rob on the current user list?

68. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 01, 2012
• 3315 views

Ah.

I believe that Rob sort of passively follows what goes on around here. I believe that he is still subscribed to the dev mailing list at sourceforge, and runs the www.rapideuphoria.com site. To my knowledge, he hasn't actively participated in the euphoria community for several years. He has an account here (robcraig) but hasn't logged on in about 18 months.

Matt

70. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
• 3300 views

A little over an hour to go... vote stands at 7 to keep, 8 to drop, and 1 neutral.

72. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by BRyan Nov 01, 2012
• 3292 views

Gee that seems to be a very fair pole !

1,238 users have viewed this post but only 12 users have determined the outcome ?

1234

74. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
• 3348 views

I wish more users would have voted as well, and feel disappointed that this was not the case. It was so close too - a few more votes would have lead to a completely different outcome.

Side note: iiuc the views go up everytime you refresh the page, or switch from thread view to message view (or vice versa) - so the 1200+ views might represent significantly fewer users. And some of those include things like search engine bots and other nonhuman entities.

76. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by boater Nov 02, 2012
• 3216 views

Vote went the wrong way for me, but that's how it is I guess.

In fact, I didn't/don't care too much about 32bit or 64bit, or even how often the compiler is upgraded. If Watcom is to be removed, can we at least hope that a replacement will be provided that is just as easy to use?

I have no special interest in C - I want to do my work in Euphoria. Compiling to EXE is very useful for distribution, and for a bit of speed. What I found very helpful was having it all packaged up - no need to look for the compiler; or sort out the right version; or find all its components and libraries, or worry about where to install it. Nice simple download, and just sort out the paths in the installer - and that's it.

Can we hope someone will make the replacement compiler just as easy to get on with?

78. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support

• Posted by tbohon Nov 04, 2012
• 2944 views

For what its worth, had I gotten back here before voting ended I would have said to drop it in favor of the alternates but only if (a) they're included in the download package or (b) there is a step-by-step installation/troubleshooting process published specifically for getting the new compiler to work with Euphoria.