1. Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by rationalgambler Aug 22, 2013
- 2320 views
Presumably there are people still using 3.1.1, maybe because they prefer a Euphoria 'Lite', so I was wondering whether it's being maintained independently of version 4.x. Anyone visiting rapideuphoria.com would be forgiven for thinking that 3.1.1 is still the "official" version, with version 4 being tucked away in the corner, seemingly as an afterthought.
Supposing someone found a bug in 3.1.1; would it be fixed? or is it effectively "abandonware"?
Just wondering, because (no disrespect to the developers who have done a great job on 4.x) in some ways I prefer the minimalistic elegance of the "classic" version of Euphoria.
2. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Aug 22, 2013
- 2302 views
Presumably there are people still using 3.1.1, maybe because they prefer a Euphoria 'Lite', so I was wondering whether it's being maintained independently of version 4.x. Anyone visiting rapideuphoria.com would be forgiven for thinking that 3.1.1 is still the "official" version, with version 4 being tucked away in the corner, seemingly as an afterthought.
Supposing someone found a bug in 3.1.1; would it be fixed? or is it effectively "abandonware"?
I would not fix it, though I wouldn't prevent someone else from doing so. I'm not personally interested in participating in a 3.1.2 release at all. I don't have enough time to devote to 4.0, 4.1, etc. as it is. 
Matt
3. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by rationalgambler Aug 22, 2013
- 2291 views
I assume Rob isn't interested either - is he now retired from any further development on Euphoria?
It just seems a little odd that on the main web site 3.1.1 is still being advertised as the default version, and yet it hasn't changed since 2007...
4. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Aug 22, 2013
- 2234 views
I assume Rob isn't interested either - is he now retired from any further development on Euphoria?
Yes, Rob doesn't really do much of anything euphoria related any more, aside from keep his website up and the archive alive.
It just seems a little odd that on the main web site 3.1.1 is still being advertised as the default version, and yet it hasn't changed since 2007...
I consider this site to be the "main" euphoria site now. 
3.1.1 was the last release that Rob was a part of, which I guess is why that's still what he offers for download.
Matt
5. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by BRyan Aug 22, 2013
- 2228 views
At least Euphoria 3.1.1 supports DOS and works on most window and Linux OS.
6. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by Selgor Aug 23, 2013
- 2169 views
At least Euphoria 3.1.1 supports DOS and works on most window and Linux OS.
Selgor here.. This is a simple request.
It is not the start of a great debate.
O.K. Mr.Matt Lewis . Here is a "challenge" - note the inverted commas. There will be no meeting at dawn with powder puffs .
That aside ...
This is an earnest approach to get me and others to get into Euphoria 4 . + etc...
I have tried many times and not once have I succeeded to get Euphoria 4 to run any of my existing programmes or archive programmes .
So, give me and other readers a sales pitch to install Euphoria4 whatever and have it do any of the following e.g.
(1) run programmes from the archives (2) run my existing .exw programmes. (3) be able to drag and drop.
and so on ....
Over to you Matt..
In the sense that I will have the sense to change over to Euphoria.
Selgor.
7. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Aug 23, 2013
- 2149 views
So, give me and other readers a sales pitch to install Euphoria4 whatever and have it do any of the following e.g.
(1) run programmes from the archives (2) run my existing .exw programmes. (3) be able to drag and drop.
Let me start by saying that once you get used to using the new features (including the much richer standard library) of 4.0, it will be painful to go back. We've included the legacy standard library for older code with the obvious exception of DOS specific routines.
With the addition of new reserved words, some older code will need modifications to work. I suspect you've have problems with this.
Also, if you were doing some dodgy things with scopes (like relying on the loading order of files), you could run into problems running older code, although this, too should be relatively easy to fix by adding some include directives. A good rule to follow is that if your file uses code in some other file, explicitly include it. Don't rely on other files to do that for you.
Without knowing more about what isn't working, it's difficult to say what the problem is. I've converted a lot of older code to work with 4.x, including updating it to use the new standard libraries. For the most part, it's a matter of removing the includes of the old files and adding the correct file. In general, it's best to convert the entire program. The global nature of the legacy library can cause problems, although the without indirect_includes was introduced to help with this.
Matt
8. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by Selgor Aug 24, 2013
- 2129 views
So, give me and other readers a sales pitch to install Euphoria4 whatever and have it do any of the following e.g.
(1) run programmes from the archives (2) run my existing .exw programmes. (3) be able to drag and drop.
it's best to convert the entire program. the without indirect_includes was introduced to help with this.
So convert the entire programme. Well Matt, been there, done that. And it was when I converted .ex to .exw , and still in 3.1.1. Took nearly 6 months. Little advantage. So, I am not rushing to Euphoria 4 whatever to do the same.
Thanks for your thoughts, Matt. I am not convinced of a need to change for me. Good for newbies though with no idea of the old. Thanks again for the reply. By the way your without indirect includes is not going anywhere. Error..
Cheers. Selgor .
9. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by ArthurCrump Aug 24, 2013
- 2102 views
Thanks for your thoughts, Matt. I am not convinced of a need to change for me. Good for newbies though with no idea of the old. Thanks again for the reply. By the way your without indirect includes is not going anywhere. Error..
Cheers. Selgor .
An underline is required between indirect and includes
Arthur
10. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Aug 24, 2013
- 2124 views
Well Matt, been there, done that. And it was when I converted .ex to .exw , and still in 3.1.1. Took nearly 6 months. Little advantage. So, I am not rushing to Euphoria 4 whatever to do the same.
I'm guessing you meant you converted from DOS to Windoze. That's a lot harder than converting from 3.1.1 to 4.0 (in fact, I wrote a couple of zero-effort fully automated converters to make this (3.1.1 -> 4.0) completely effortless).
11. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by SDPringle Aug 24, 2013
- 2095 views
After working together with this project for a long time. I understand why they call them "bugs". For every cockroach you see there are five you don't. If you find a bug in 3.1.1, post it, it might still be in 4.1.
The reason is bugs are like this is it can sometimes require a lot of things to happen before a bug will trigger a symptom in a program. The symptom not revealed is not discovered by testing and once discovered it might be hard to reproduce. Only with code inspection can you really flush out lots of bugs. You can only inspect routines if you know what they are supposed to do. When routines are commented you can check the implementation against specification and if you are really careful you can find the bugs.
Shawn Pringle
12. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by rationalgambler Aug 25, 2013
- 2284 views
After working together with this project for a long time. I understand why they call them "bugs". For every cockroach you see there are five you don't. If you find a bug in 3.1.1, post it, it might still be in 4.1.
I've never found any bugs in 3.1.1, but I found plenty in 4.x when I started using it a couple of years after Eu went open source. I'm sure many, perhaps most, have been fixed by now - or maybe not!
The thing is, the more complex software is, the more bugs there are likely to be hidden away, and the longer it's going to take to flush them all out. And if the user base isn't very large (as is the case with Eu), then it's likely that some bugs (perhaps many) will not be found for a long time, if ever.
I'm learning C at the moment and in time will hopefully be able to fix any bugs in 3.1.1 and perhaps make a few changes. The source code is well documented and seems very "clean". Again, no disrespect to the devs, but 4.x is just too bloated for my taste. I know people say "if you don't like a feature then just don't use it", but it's not quite that simple.
13. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Aug 25, 2013
- 2264 views
I've never found any bugs in 3.1.1
Huh. Strange. There are plenty!
E.g. call_back() doesn't work in DOS. (This was fixed in an alpha version of Euphoria, before DOS support was dropped.)
dir() with wildcards doesn't work on non-DOS/Windows platforms.
Routine_id scoping is not consistent with regular symbol scoping (see http://scm.openeuphoria.org/hg/euphoria/rev/4a0c5285a717 for the fix and the 3.1.1 file with the bug in http://scm.openeuphoria.org/hg/euphoria/file/10a51702a65c/source/be_symtab.c )
Oh, and potential (but as far as is currently known, only theoretical) buffer overruns/overflows: http://sourceforge.net/p/rapideuphoria/mailman/message/22049975/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/rapideuphoria/mailman/message/22020214/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/rapideuphoria/mailman/message/22052048/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/rapideuphoria/mailman/message/22034321/ for examples.
14. Re: Status of Euphoria 3.1.1?
- Posted by BRyan Aug 25, 2013
- 2032 views
I've never found any bugs in 3.1.1, but I found plenty in 4.x when I started using it a couple of years after Eu went open source. I'm sure many, perhaps most, have been fixed by now - or maybe not!
The thing is, the more complex software is, the more bugs there are likely to be hidden away, and the longer it's going to take to flush them all out. And if the user base isn't very large (as is the case with Eu), then it's likely that some bugs (perhaps many) will not be found for a long time, if ever.
I'm learning C at the moment and in time will hopefully be able to fix any bugs in 3.1.1 and perhaps make a few changes. The source code is well documented and seems very "clean". Again, no disrespect to the devs, but 4.x is just too bloated for my taste. I know people say "if you don't like a feature then just don't use it", but it's not quite that simple.
It is easy to add features when you add the features in the euphoria version of the sources because you can write the feature in euphoria.
The only problem is even if you translate it and compile it, you have no binders or translators that contain your code.
The only way to add a feature in the "C" coded source is to write the feature in "C".
You say well that is easy; I will just translate my euphoria coded feature to "C" and just use that "C" translated feature in "C" coded source.
When you look at the "C" translated feature you will find it maybe broken up into three separate files. They contain "C" code but it is not like the "C" you will find in a book. Variables and offsets are represented numeric values that the compiler understands but it is very difficult for the average user to understand. You still have to find away to call your "C" translated feature The reason for these problem is that Euphoria was originally hand coded.
Other computer languages are compiled using a language grammar.
There is no formal written step by step explanation how to added a feature to the Euphoria "C" source.
In the past many features have been added but there has never been an effort to add some mechanism to make it easy for an end user to pass a feature from the back-end to the front-end.
