1. Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 18, 2012
- 4503 views
Please vote here on whether or not you want Euphoria 4.1.0 and later versions to continue support using the OpenWatcom compiler or not.
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
In two weeks time, November 1st, 12:30 EST, voting will end and the results will be anounced. These votes will be tallied with the dev list votes.
2. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ssallen Oct 18, 2012
- 4434 views
Heh, I'm in favor... time to upgrade my compiler anyway. :)
3. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by tbohon Oct 18, 2012
- 4386 views
If OpenWatcom is removed what is the replacement or, if none is planned, what are our options?
4. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ssallen Oct 19, 2012
- 4390 views
If OpenWatcom is removed what is the replacement or, if none is planned, what are our options?
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.
5. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Oct 19, 2012
- 4344 views
I'd be curious to see the list of reasons and/or benefits for dropping Watcom.
But even without such a list, I'm all for it.
-Greg
6. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 20, 2012
- 4304 views
I'd be curious to see the list of reasons and/or benefits for dropping Watcom.
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..
7. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by kenneth Oct 20, 2012
- 4270 views
OK by me. Hopefully, Windows users won't have to install any more of MinGW than is actually needed. I presume C++ support won't be required, for example. Will a suitable installer be included with the Euphoria download?
8. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Oct 20, 2012
- 4254 views
I'd be curious to see the list of reasons and/or benefits for dropping Watcom.
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..
No 64-bit compiling? Who do these people think they are?! LOL
That's a good enough reason right there!
OK by me. Hopefully, Windows users won't have to install any more of MinGW than is actually needed. I presume C++ support won't be required, for example. Will a suitable installer be included with the Euphoria download?
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
9. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by Lone_EverGreen_Ranger Oct 20, 2012
- 4250 views
I'm in favor of removing OpenWatcom. Will support for GCC/MingW become better in the future?
10. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by DonCole Oct 20, 2012
- 4164 views
No, No, Nay!
KEEP the support.
It works good and lasts a long time.
Don Cole
11. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by SDPringle Oct 20, 2012
- 4218 views
Keep
12. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by boater Oct 20, 2012
- 4219 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.
13. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by andi49 Oct 20, 2012
- 4190 views
Keep it!
14. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by DominiqueB Oct 20, 2012
- 4195 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
15. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by EUWX Oct 20, 2012
- 4154 views
I think Watcom, should be retired, in favour of MinGW/GCC.
Consideration should be given to D.
16. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 21, 2012
- 4133 views
So far, 4 votes to keep, 5 votes to drop. Let the voting continue!
17. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by _tom (admin) Oct 22, 2012
- 4072 views
I have a problem running OpenWatcom.
I installed Eu4.0.5 on a netbook, N450, with Windows 7.
- eui sanity.ex works
- euc sanity.ex fails
euc sanity.ex
Build directory: ...
Translating code, pass: 1 ... 11 generating
Compiling with Watcom
Compiling 1% init-.c
Couldn't compile file 'init-.c'
Status: -1 Command: wcc386 /dEWINDOWS /bt=nt /mf /w0 /zq /j /zp4 /fp5 /fpi87 /5r /otimra /s /Ic:\Euphoria init-.c
- But, sanity.ex ran and compiled ok using Linux Eu4.0.5 and gcc.
If OpenWatcom does not work, then it should be dropped.
If an easy to install C compiler is available for Windows users (and it is easy for developers to maintain) then that is the "best" choice.
The actual compiler choice should not matter.
TOM
18. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 22, 2012
- 4070 views
I have a problem running OpenWatcom.
- But, sanity.ex ran and compiled ok using Linux Eu4.0.5 and gcc.
If OpenWatcom does not work, then it should be dropped.
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
19. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 22, 2012
- 4046 views
I have a problem running OpenWatcom.
I installed Eu4.0.5 on a netbook, N450, with Windows 7.
- eui sanity.ex works
- euc sanity.ex fails
euc sanity.ex
Build directory: ...
Translating code, pass: 1 ... 11 generating
Compiling with Watcom
Compiling 1% init-.c
Couldn't compile file 'init-.c'
Status: -1 Command: wcc386 /dEWINDOWS /bt=nt /mf /w0 /zq /j /zp4 /fp5 /fpi87 /5r /otimra /s /Ic:\Euphoria init-.c
- But, sanity.ex ran and compiled ok using Linux Eu4.0.5 and gcc.
If OpenWatcom does not work, then it should be dropped.
I think you may not have Watcom correctly installed / configured. I just tried 4.0.5 on Windows and interpreted and translated and compiled with Watcom, it passed.
If an easy to install C compiler is available for Windows users (and it is easy for developers to maintain) then that is the "best" choice.
The actual compiler choice should not matter.
I find Watcom to be generally easier to deal with on Windows (aside from 64-bits, of course). MinGW seems easiest to deal with IME under MSYS, but is slow as molasses. I often set up a Linux VM and cross compile. Mind you, this is when developing euphoria or wxEuphoria, both of which have a lot of compiling to do when I'm working on them.
Matt
Forked into: OpenWatcom install problem
20. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by K_D_R Oct 23, 2012
- 4024 views
Remove OpenWatcom support. In my opinion the developers are stretched pretty thin - witness the lag in Linux bug fixes and 64 bit support.
21. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 23, 2012
- 4014 views
Remove OpenWatcom support. In my opinion the developers are stretched pretty thin - witness the lag in Linux bug fixes and 64 bit support.
Linux bugs actually tend to get fixed quicker than anything else.
Matt
22. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 23, 2012
- 4003 views
Remove OpenWatcom support. In my opinion the developers are stretched pretty thin - witness the lag in Linux bug fixes and 64 bit support.
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.
23. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 23, 2012
- 3973 views
Remove OpenWatcom support. In my opinion the developers are stretched pretty thin - witness the lag in Linux bug fixes and 64 bit support.
Heck, i'd like to see the memory leaks fixed!
useless
24. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 23, 2012
- 3946 views
So far, 4 votes to keep, 5 votes to drop. Let the voting continue!
Now 4 votes to keep, 7 votes to drop.
25. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 23, 2012
- 3948 views
i'd like to see the memory leaks fixed
Is there a ticket(s) created for the memory leaks you are referring too? If not, could you please add a ticket so the issue can gain some visibility etc ...
26. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 23, 2012
- 3948 views
i'd like to see the memory leaks fixed
Is there a ticket(s) created for the memory leaks you are referring too? If not, could you please add a ticket so the issue can gain some visibility etc ...
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
27. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Oct 23, 2012
- 3930 views
Matt put one in right after discussing it in this thread: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/119240.wc
28. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 23, 2012
- 3945 views
Matt put one in right after discussing it in this thread: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/119240.wc
That doesn't reference the dll leak.
useless
29. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Oct 23, 2012
- 3917 views
Fair enough -- I didn't see any reference to that one.
30. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 23, 2012
- 3913 views
Matt put one in right after discussing it in this thread: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/119240.wc
That doesn't reference the dll leak.
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
31. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Oct 23, 2012
- 3920 views
Well what are we paying you for? (smirk)
32. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 24, 2012
- 3800 views
I'll vote for keep watcom if possible. Check the v405 download count for with watcom, tells us something!
33. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 24, 2012
- 3828 views
I'll vote for keep watcom if possible. Check the v405 download count for with watcom, tells us something!
It tells us that... most people get the non-OW version?
(Btw, its interesting to compare downloads of the compilers themselves-
MinGW has had over a million downloads this week; OpenWatcom hasn't had that many ever.)
34. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 24, 2012
- 3825 views
I'll vote for keep watcom if possible. Check the v405 download count for with watcom, tells us something!
It tells us that... most people get the non-OW version?
(Btw, its interesting to compare downloads of the compilers themselves-
MinGW has had over a million downloads this week; OpenWatcom hasn't had that many ever.)
Our numbers don't come anywhere near these two compilers, however...
35. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ArthurCrump Oct 25, 2012
- 3763 views
My vote is neutral. I use a C compiler for one purpose only: To compile Euphoria programs on a 64-bit Windows 7 system. However, I don't need a lot of speed. I don't care what compiler is recommended but would like to be able to download it either as part of a Euphoria distribution or from the same page as Euphoria.
Arthur
36. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by SDPringle Oct 25, 2012
- 3714 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]
37. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 25, 2012
- 3693 views
7 to drop 5 to keep
It seems the 'drop' votes have it here.
5 to keep, 7 to drop, 1 to be neutral - but implicitly a keep vote if we don't bundle MinGW with 4.1.0
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]
That'd require us to get users to do a new install or a re-install everytime we want to take a vote.
Also, I suspect a lot of users would be neutral and would just use the default setting - so in your example it'd be rigged to be in favor of keeping watcom.
At least one user seems to have registered on this forum just for this vote, BTW.
38. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Oct 25, 2012
- 3702 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.
39. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by andi49 Oct 25, 2012
- 3669 views
7 to drop 5 to keep
It seems the 'drop' votes have it here.
5 to keep, 7 to drop, 1 to be neutral - but implicitly a keep vote if we don't bundle MinGW with 4.1.0
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]
That'd require us to get users to do a new install or a re-install everytime we want to take a vote.
Also, I suspect a lot of users would be neutral and would just use the default setting - so in your example it'd be rigged to be in favor of keeping watcom.
At least one user seems to have registered on this forum just for this vote, BTW.
Hi, What about making a 'real' voting?
I mean not in a forum thread that is mixed up with different topics (like 'creating tickets' etc.).
Maybe someone can setup/create a Voting-Page on OpenEuphoria.org ..> just login ..> vote yes/no and that it is.
Put the info and a link, that there is a Voting on the OpenEuphoria Homepage so everybody can see it. Not in the forum, where it goes up and down in the threadlist.
Dropping the support for the last (i call it like this) 'native' Windows Compiler seems to me important.
With OpenWatcom there is not only a Compiler also there are tools like Resource Compiler/Editor, Debugger/Spy etc.
Also i checked the Downloads on Sourceforge and they tell me, that more People downloaded the Euphoria-OW Package than all the *IX Packages togheter.
This is my Peronal opinion, Please excuse my not perfect English.
Andreas (BTW which is GUI-Wrapper for Windows is already 64-Bit ready, is there any?)
40. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by gbonvehi Oct 25, 2012
- 3669 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.
41. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 25, 2012
- 3615 views
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.
The challenge there is that MS' C compiler does not support extended (80-bit) floating point, which 64-bit euphoria needs.
Matt
42. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 25, 2012
- 3599 views
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.
The challenge there is that MS' C compiler does not support extended (80-bit) floating point, which 64-bit euphoria needs.
Matt
And who can afford to buy the MS SDK? Or put up with MS killing support in it for winxp next year?
useless
43. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by santy Oct 26, 2012
- 3563 views
Keep it!
Best regards,
Alex Antypenko
http://code.google.com/p/santysoft/
44. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 26, 2012
- 3564 views
What about making a 'real' voting?
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.
Dropping the support for the last (i call it like this) 'native' Windows Compiler seems to me important.
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.
With OpenWatcom there is not only a Compiler also there are tools like Resource Compiler/Editor, Debugger/Spy etc.
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).
Also i checked the Downloads on Sourceforge and they tell me, that more People downloaded the Euphoria-OW Package than all the *IX Packages togheter.
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)
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.
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.
45. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3499 views
I mean not in a forum thread that is mixed up with different topics (like 'creating tickets' etc.).
Maybe someone can setup/create a Voting-Page on OpenEuphoria.org ..> just login ..> vote yes/no and that it is.
Put the info and a link, that there is a Voting on the OpenEuphoria Homepage so everybody can see it. Not in the forum, where it goes up and down in the threadlist.
Not a bad idea. For the goto vote we had a link on the RDS website.
I don't think any of the server admins have time to set this up in time for this vote, but in the future it's a sound idea. I'd like to add a comments section though so people can optionally state the reasons for their vote, if they want.
46. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by BRyan Oct 26, 2012
- 3483 views
KEEP OPENWATCOM SUPPORT.
I posted here because I don't know where to vote ?
47. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3523 views
KEEP OPENWATCOM SUPPORT.
I posted here because I don't know where to vote ?
This is the correct place to vote. You posted in the right place.
48. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3540 views
Now 4 votes to keep, 7 votes to drop.
It's getting close now.
7 votes to keep, 8 votes to drop, 1 vote to be neutral.
49. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Oct 26, 2012
- 3517 views
Now 4 votes to keep, 7 votes to drop.
It's getting close now.
7 votes to keep, 8 votes to drop, 1 vote to be neutral.
I count 7 to drop, 8 to keep, and two neutral.
I didn't count tom's vote as an official vote to drop because it was conditional he was having a problem getting the compiler to work.
Voted to drop:
ssallen
ghaberek
kenneth
Lone Evergreen Ranger
EUWX
KDR
gbonhevi
Voted to keep:
DonCole
SDPringle
boater
andi49
DominiqueB
alanjoxley
santy
BRyan
If no better voting method comes up, maybe start a thread where the only response is "Yes" or "No".
50. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3522 views
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
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.
51. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 26, 2012
- 3482 views
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
What does that mean? Do I have to formally vote here because my vote on the dev list isn't counted?
jimbrown already said the votes from Euphorum will be added to the votes on the dev list:
Please vote here on whether or not you want Euphoria 4.1.0 and later versions to continue support using the OpenWatcom compiler or not.
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
In two weeks time, November 1st, 12:30 EST, voting will end and the results will be anounced. These votes will be tallied with the dev list votes.
useless
52. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3525 views
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
What does that mean? Do I have to formally vote here because my vote on the dev list isn't counted?
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.
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.
Agreed.
53. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3498 views
Devs who have already voted on the dev list will not have their votes counted here.
What does that mean? Do I have to formally vote here because my vote on the dev list isn't counted?
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.
I guess if you wanted to change your vote for some reason though, you could do it here.
54. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by _tom (admin) Oct 26, 2012
- 3493 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.
55. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by useless_ Oct 26, 2012
- 3435 views
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?
As long as typing euc same as now still works, i am not caring how. I am more concerned about losing 32bit support for winxp in the next few years, it may be a 12 year old OS, but it still works.
I believe with the crop of small sbc like the Pi, Oak, and others, size matters, and if the compiler or resulting dll/exe won't fit into their 512Kbyte or 512Mbyte memory, it's a detriment to Eu spreading.
useless
56. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 27, 2012
- 3448 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
57. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by CoJaBo2 Oct 27, 2012
- 3446 views
Its bundled with Eu, and it just works. EUC -wat source.exw = done.
I actually do not see how this would be any more difficult than "EUC -gcc source.exw"
Don't have to download, and worse, setup other packages. Lazy I know, but there it is.
MinGW is one installer, like Watcom. If its really that difficult to run a single additional GUI installer, it should be possible to bundle it with Eu, like Watcom.
Is there a licence issue with bundling GCC with Euphoria?
GCC is under the usual GPL; Watcom has its own custom license (which Debian considers "non-free"). If it wasn't an issue with Watcom, I don't see why it would be with GCC. (Since Eu is public domain according to the SF page, it would probably make more sense to bundle neither of them, but I'm not a lawyer)
I believe with the crop of small sbc like the Pi, Oak, and others, size matters, and if the compiler or resulting dll/exe won't fit into their 512Kbyte or 512Mbyte memory, it's a detriment to Eu spreading.
This also seems like a reason to ditch Watcom- note that even Windows can run on ARM CPUs now. Watcom is not likely support this either; so the devs would end up maintaining compiler-specific nuances to support just one of the 4-or-so platforms on only one of its 3 supported architectures.
58. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by kenneth Oct 27, 2012
- 3443 views
MinGW is one installer, like Watcom. If its really that difficult to run a single additional GUI installer, it should be possible to bundle it with Eu, like Watcom.
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.
59. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ne1uno Oct 28, 2012
- 3444 views
MinGW is one installer, like Watcom.
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, [...]
I never used the oe/ow installer. I was under the impression it was an online installer. maybe it just downloads their offline installer? can someone say exactly how long it takes vrs minGW?
I installed minGW on a netbook using the online installer a few months ago at a wi-fi hot spot and it took more than a few minutes, so it probably won't be fun on a dialup. the surprize download/install could be a dealbreaker for some.
there are 3rd party offline installer for minGW or forked gcc. they are under 20meg, with varying degrees of nice. the minGW download page on sourceforge doesn't make it easy to find the many files/version checks you need to download and install to get a working system. probably most people use the minGW online installer now.
nuwen.net has had 32 bit and and tdragon.net has 32 and 64 bit installers to name two. clang offers some new optimization techniques still using gcc. many more options than openwatcom.
I don't know how a 20meg zio becomes almost 200 meg installed. part of the reason is there are many small files which nevertheless on windows take up the full allocation block, so you will see different installed size based on the geometry of the storage? installing to a ramdrive, if you can afford, it will be much faster than where I have it on a USB hard drive. will probably always take longer to edit a program than it does to build it.
I'm not sure it's as easy to mix versions of librarys, gcc 4.4, 4.5 etc. so that is another possible bug vector.
the extra minute or two to compile and the larger installed size of minGW probably aren't that much of a factor for most people any more. there's always another something alt+tab or a few steps away to pass free time.
anyone building and testing euphoria or wanting to do extra optimizations/makefile hacking on their own programs might want to also get msys or mintty as an improved console that handles forward slashes that minGW often requires. it can really trip you up if you are not expecting it.
vote? I don't have to avoid all the ifdef #WATCOM stuff and port and retest every bug fix/feature request, which BTW takes umpteen hours a week and is logically a source of bugs, even if all goes well. count me neutral, that is, with the majority slightly for dropping. is really a no brainer. (I already use minGW, so a little bias.)
the lack of 64 compiler is less of a concern right now, but eventually, the topic will be dropping 32 bit support altogether.
no one should suggest there will be no pain switching to minGW. for developers and users. though once it is installed, for compiling translated euphoria programs it should be no more difficult than watcom to get an executable. you can UPX them too.
I have started to wonder if the support calls will simply increase if gcc is the only windows compiler option. for sure in the short term. especially if we can't bundle an offline installer giving someone the option to use the online installer to update later. many projects include a version of minGW gcc in their source tree to avoid this problem.
60. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by SDPringle Oct 29, 2012
- 3376 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
61. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 31, 2012
- 3281 views
If no better voting method comes up, maybe start a thread where the only response is "Yes" or "No".
This is fine with me.
I didn't count tom's vote as an official vote to drop because it was conditional he was having a problem getting the compiler to work.
After you wrote this, _tom clarified his position: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/119471.wc
So we're still at 8 to drop, 7 to keep, and 1 neutral.
I count 7 to drop, 8 to keep, and two neutral.
Voted to drop:
ssallen
ghaberek
kenneth
Lone Evergreen Ranger
EUWX
KDR
gbonhevi
Voted to keep:
DonCole
SDPringle
boater
andi49
DominiqueB
alanjoxley
santy
BRyan
SDPringle already voted on the dev list, which is why I don't count it here. This is what the vote looks like so far (as of today, when I write this).
Voted to drop: 8
ssallen
ghaberek
kenneth
Lone Evergreen Ranger
EUWX
KDR
gbonhevi
tom
Voted to keep: 7
DonCole
boater
andi49
DominiqueB
alanjoxley
santy
BRyan
For the record, here's the dev list vote:
Voted to drop: 4
DerekParnell
jeremy
euphoric
jimcbrown
Voted to keep: 2
~SDPringle
mattlewis
62. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by BRyan Oct 31, 2012
- 3273 views
What happen to my VOTE TO KEEP ?
63. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by BRyan Oct 31, 2012
- 3297 views
What happen to my VOTE TO KEEP ?
Never mind I see it
64. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 31, 2012
- 3244 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
65. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 31, 2012
- 3241 views
BTW, has anybody pinged Rob Craig on the dropping 32 bit support?
I'm not aware of any serious proposal to drop 32 bit support.
Matt
66. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by alanjohnoxley Oct 31, 2012
- 3252 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?
67. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 31, 2012
- 3224 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?
I don't think anyone has explictly consulted him about it or mentioned it to him. He hasn't been on the forum in a year and a half, though. I'm not sure if he's still on the dev list.
68. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3261 views
Hi Matt,
sorry I meant dropping support of the "32bit only" compiler Watcom, not the language internals.
Ah.
Is Rob on the current user list?
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
69. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3226 views
What happen to my VOTE TO KEEP ?
Never mind I see it
Don't forget to vote! Voting ends today! In about 2 and a half hours! The vote hasn't moved in almost a week!
70. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3242 views
A little over an hour to go... vote stands at 7 to keep, 8 to drop, and 1 neutral.
71. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3387 views
A little over an hour to go... vote stands at 7 to keep, 8 to drop, and 1 neutral.
Voting has ended. Vote is 8 to drop, 7 to keep.
Dev list vote was 4 to drop, 2 to keep.
The tallied total vote is 12 to drop, 9 to keep.
72. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by BRyan Nov 01, 2012
- 3235 views
A little over an hour to go... vote stands at 7 to keep, 8 to drop, and 1 neutral.
Voting has ended. Vote is 8 to drop, 7 to keep.
Dev list vote was 4 to drop, 2 to keep.
The tallied total vote is 12 to drop, 9 to keep.
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
73. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jaygade Nov 01, 2012
- 3195 views
How do you propose to force people to vote? Many users (myself included) don't care one way or the other.
The only time I've compiled anything on Euphoria was when building the interpreter itself.
74. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3288 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
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.
75. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 01, 2012
- 3214 views
1,238 users have viewed this post but only 12 users have determined the outcome ?
Only 12 who care...?
Or, those 12 each viewed this post 100 times.
76. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by boater Nov 02, 2012
- 3160 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?
77. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Nov 02, 2012
- 3143 views
Can we hope someone will make the replacement compiler just as easy to get on with?
This is a long way out, but... as part of my IDE project, I plan on having strong support for all aspects of running, binding, and translating projects. I'll try my best to make it easy to install and use whichever compiler(s) Euphoria supports (e.g. MinGW).
-Greg
78. Re: Voting begins on removing OpenWatcom support
- Posted by tbohon Nov 04, 2012
- 2893 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.