1. rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by Jd63 Feb 22, 2019
- 1708 views
Recently I tried to do a file search at the archive but got an internal server error, also I noticed that there haven't been any new user contributions since March last year (I think this was around the time that the site went down), so I guess some problems weren't fixed after it went back up. Anyway I emailed Rob a few days ago but haven't received a reply.
I've been using euphoria for 20 years and have stuck with the final RDS release 3.1.1 (no disrespect to the devs, I just never saw the need to upgrade to the 4.x series). All things come to an end but it's sad to see the demise of this unique programming language. I've dabbled in other languages over the years but have kept coming back to euphoria because of its simplicity and elegance; I'll continue to use it as long as it runs on the OS I'm using.
2. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by irv Feb 22, 2019
- 1686 views
I don't think Euphoria is dead yet.
I do suggest that you try Eu 4.1b2, however. There are many very useful features that don't exist in 3.x, and so far, only one very rarely-encountered bug, which is easily programmed around.
The most convincing (to me) reason for upgrading to 4.1 was this: when writing the EuGTK binding, there were a number of things which would have been difficult or impossible to code in 3.x. Eu 4.1 made it relatively easy.
3. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Feb 23, 2019
- 1628 views
I've been with Euphoria since it was available on 3.5" floppy disk! I love the language!
v4 is waaaaaaay better than v3.
It's unfortunate that development has so painfully slowed, because it still has huge potential on desktop platforms. It's so performant in so many domains. Maybe we should fund its development...
4. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by ChrisB (moderator) Feb 23, 2019
- 1637 views
As you say, Rapideuphoria has become ropy now, the files are still there, but searching is restricted, and uploads no longer seem possible. There was some concern when it was noted, and the entire archive was downloaded for preservation. It can now be accessed and searched at
https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.rapideuphoria.com
https://archive.usingeuphoria.com/
http://phix.x10.mx/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage
Only the last one allows uploads, but it is a bit fiddly. A lot of files on Pcan are still hosted on RDS, and the Pcan links point to them, see http://phix.x10.mx/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Catagory.Rds-hosted
Cheers
Chris
5. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by petelomax Feb 23, 2019
- 1632 views
http://phix.x10.mx/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage
Only the last one allows uploads, but it is a bit fiddly. A lot of files on Pcan are still hosted on RDS, and the Pcan links point to them, see http://phix.x10.mx/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Catagory.Rds-hosted
I'm open to suggestions for improvement. There are undoubtedly several cookbook recipes that would help, both for creating a new page with default text and perhaps more significantly generating new unique page and file names. If anyone wants to download the entire pmwiki and host it somewhere else, either permanently or just for experimentation, or just in case, they can. If anyone wants to spend a couple of hours on the rds-hosted list (manually) transferring copies of files from The Archive to PCAN, and/or adding "https://archive.usingeuphoria.com" links to match the "http://www.rapideuphoria.com" ones, and removing the [[!rds-hosted]] tags as they go, they can, and would even be thanked!
It would probably be a good idea to extend the "Misc Menu" on the right of this page with that list of links as well as "The Archive".
Cheers, Pete
6. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by Jd63 Feb 23, 2019
- 1606 views
I do suggest that you try Eu 4.1b2, however. There are many very useful features that don't exist in 3.x, and so far, only one very rarely-encountered bug, which is easily programmed around.
Thanks irv, I'll take a look. I did actually try 4.x a few years ago but it seemed buggy, and I couldn't really see the point of adding a lot of extra features which weren't really necessary. It seemed as though the devs were trying to make eu more "C-like" for some reason.
@ ChrisB, thanks for the links.
7. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by irv Feb 23, 2019
- 1570 views
The extra features are mostly not necessary - in any given program.
The new ones are there to prevent each programmer from having to re-invent a wheel. Which wheel you would have to invent varies from program to program, and - as we can see by inspecting the user-contributed "wheels" on the RDS site, some of those wheels aren't as easy to use as others, some have bugs, and most lack documentation.
The idea behind 4.0 was to provide tested "wheels" which users could access, rather than having to invent their own versions. This has an additional benefit; there's a standard version so that it's easier to get help from numerous users, rather than trying to get help with a library that few people use and the author of which is no longer around.
While it may look like people were implementing "C-like" functions, in reality those are things that any modern program may need to use. Computers can do a lot more than they were capable of doing when Euphoria was first developed. It would be counter-productive to ignore that.
8. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by Jd63 Feb 24, 2019
- 1529 views
The idea behind 4.0 was to provide tested "wheels" which users could access, rather than having to invent their own versions. This has an additional benefit; there's a standard version so that it's easier to get help from numerous users, rather than trying to get help with a library that few people use and the author of which is no longer around.
While it may look like people were implementing "C-like" functions, in reality those are things that any modern program may need to use. Computers can do a lot more than they were capable of doing when Euphoria was first developed. It would be counter-productive to ignore that.
Irv, I hear what you're saying and it's not my intention to start any flame wars or debate the merits of 3.1.1 vs 4.x, which would be pointless. Yes, I agree that work on the 4.x series was a commendable effort to improve eu and bring it into line with more "industrial strength" languages like Python and Java. I remember from the days of the old mailing list there were many who were frustrated with Rob's reluctance to implement certain features (like namespaces, for example). I guess it just depends on what your needs are; I've not really come up against the limits of 3.1.1, but then I only use eu for relatively small (but quite complex) projects.
And maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems a little contradictory to say that the "C-like" functions are needed for modern programs when C is a lot older than Euphoria (even the early versions)?
9. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by irv Feb 24, 2019
- 1495 views
And maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems a little contradictory to say that the "C-like" functions are needed for modern programs when C is a lot older than Euphoria (even the early versions)?
I'm not sure what makes a function appear to be C-like. But, since C is older than Eu, C obviously implements functions that were needed or useful. If the same functions were lacking in Eu, then they would have to be created by the programmer in Eu, or called from a .dll or .so. Neither of those two possibilities are optimal.
The first falls into the re-inventing the wheel category, while the second requires more programmer savvy than a "simple, easy-to-use" programming language should need, such as requiring different code for different platforms, an understanding of pointers, structures, etc.
For functions that programmers may sometimes need, it's better that they be part of the programming language than not. They can always be ignored. If the functions are missing,that's a good reason for programmers to find a different programming language.
10. Re: rapideuphoria.com?
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Feb 25, 2019
- 1497 views
Anyway I emailed Rob a few days ago but haven't received a reply.
He's pretty much written it off and won't be putting in the time to fix it.
I'm working on a new site that will include a built-in code repository. But I won't be getting to that until after I get the new site up as an as-is replacement for the current site.
I'm open to suggestions on how that should work. Feel free to share any ideas you might have.
no disrespect to the devs, I just never saw the need to upgrade to the 4.x series
I think 4.1 is great. The standard library has come a long way and there are a lot of new features that are really helpful, like switch and multiple assignment, e.g. {var1,var2} = my_func()
-Greg