1. Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by irv Sep 06, 2019
- 899 views
One of the first things I ran across while looking at the "Welcome" pages was a statement:
"Tested on XP, 7."
My questions:
- is official testing really still being done on XP?
- can we update that to include Win 8 and 10, if testing is done on them as well
- if not, should we just add a line that "many/most users run Euphoria on Windows 8 and 10".
2. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by _tom (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 890 views
There are many artifacts (think noise) in these documents. Some are even copies of the original RDS Euphoria docs.
"Tested on Win7" is a good catch of some obsolete information.
Microsoft will be happy enough if it runs on Win10.
For Linux versions I use Mint, but Mint is dropping 32-bit so my netbook is going to need something new.
It is time to move any references to DOS to a chapter on historical Euphoria.
_tom
3. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 885 views
One of the first things I ran across while looking at the "Welcome" pages was a statement:
"Tested on XP, 7."
Right, this is precisely what I've been talking about. A lot of little details need to be addressed.
is official testing really still being done on XP?
Definitely not. I am currently building and testing on:
- Windows 10 Home 1903
- Linux Mint 19.2 "Tina"
- mac OS X 10.14 Mojave
- FreeBSD 12.0
can we update that to include Win 8 and 10, if testing is done on them as well
I would say that we support all versions of Windows that are supported by Microsoft. So that's Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Server 2012 R2 (I think?), Server 2016, and Server 2019.
if not, should we just add a line that "many/most users run Euphoria on Windows 8 and 10".
That's fine too. The more future-proofing we can do to the documentation, the better.
but Mint is dropping 32-bit so my netbook is going to need something new.
I'm wondering if we should drop 32-bit support altogether. It would certainly slim down steps to getting out a release.
It is time to move any references to DOS to a chapter on historical Euphoria.
Yes, we should remove any reference to DOS in the made docs. But leave it in the update history, of course.
-Greg
4. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by irv Sep 06, 2019
- 885 views
I would say that we support all versions of Windows that are supported by Microsoft. So that's Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Server 2012 R2 (I think?), Server 2016, and Server 2019.
Yes, that's much better. I had forgotten about the server platforms.
5. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 908 views
I'm wondering if we should drop 32-bit support altogether. It would certainly slim down steps to getting out a release.
I'm personally not against this, but won't it kill some of our big libs, like Win32Lib?
Regardless, I'm not against this.
6. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by irv Sep 06, 2019
- 891 views
I'm wondering if we should drop 32-bit support altogether. It would certainly slim down steps to getting out a release.
I'm personally not against this, but won't it kill some of our big libs, like Win32Lib?
Regardless, I'm not against this.
I have a few questions about this: is it even feasible to update Win32Lib to Win64Lib? My impression is that Microsoft adds functions to Windows at a rate that would take a large crew just to keep up, much less to convert that old code. We don't have a crew, large or otherwise. Corrections welcome.
Secondly, is there any demand for a windows "wrapper" that can't be met by existing (and maintained by others) packages like wxWindows, etc? If not, then Win32Lib can go into the History pages, along with great thanks and much appreciation. I made some money using Win32Lib, at a time when it was hard to come up with enough spare cash to buy a licensed copy of Euphoria. VisualBasic - fuggettaboutit!
7. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 881 views
...is it even feasible to update Win32Lib to Win64Lib?
...is there any demand for a windows "wrapper" that can't be met by existing (and maintained by others) packages like wxWindows, etc?
This is (at least partially) why I'm for going to 64-bit only.
We have GUI options that will work cross-platform. Are there any 32-bit platforms we should not abandon, like the Raspberry Pi or other tiny PCs?
8. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 889 views
I have a few questions about this: is it even feasible to update Win32Lib to Win64Lib?
No need to change the name. "Win32" is the legacy name for the Windows API: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/356465/202730. Microsoft is just bad at naming things.
My impression is that Microsoft adds functions to Windows at a rate that would take a large crew just to keep up, much less to convert that old code. We don't have a crew, large or otherwise. Corrections welcome.
The Win32 API (aka "Windows API") is actually relatively static. Microsoft has added plenty of other frameworks for desktop applications though, like WinForms, WPF, and UWP.
Secondly, is there any demand for a windows "wrapper" that can't be met by existing (and maintained by others) packages like wxWindows, etc?
You're not wrong, except that the comparison matrix of desktop frameworks has holes all over the place. No one of them satisfies all needs.
Ideally I'd like to see a framework that's written directly in Euphoria like Win32Lib but that is also cross-platform.
The problem with this approach is that macOS requires the use of Objective-C to interface with the Cocoa API, which Euphoria can't really do.
If not, then Win32Lib can go into the History pages, along with great thanks and much appreciation.
If we adopt and distribute a framework with Euphoria, then I feel this will be the case.
-Greg
9. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by irv Sep 06, 2019
- 866 views
...is it even feasible to update Win32Lib to Win64Lib?
...is there any demand for a windows "wrapper" that can't be met by existing (and maintained by others) packages like wxWindows, etc?
This is (at least partially) why I'm for going to 64-bit only.
We have GUI options that will work cross-platform. Are there any 32-bit platforms we should not abandon, like the Raspberry Pi or other tiny PCs?
I forgot about the Raspberry Pi - I have a couple of those. However, as long as a 32-bit version (4.1, let's say) is still downloadable, I'm ok using that.
Besides which, isn't the Pi 4 a 64-bit machine? If the price comes down (which I'm sure it will) it won't hurt much to use one of those instead.
10. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 848 views
We have GUI options that will work cross-platform. Are there any 32-bit platforms we should not abandon, like the Raspberry Pi or other tiny PCs?
I think the Raspberry Pi is a very specific support case. It's a smart move for us to support it since it's targeted as a learning platform.
While technically the latest Pi models have a 64-bit CPU, AFAIK the Raspbian OS is still distributed 32-bit.
I don't think we should officially support any other boards though. But just because it's not supported doesn't mean it won't work.
-Greg
11. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by irv Sep 06, 2019
- 883 views
There appear to be a couple of true 64-bit OS's available for the Pi 4:
Gentoo: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=249248
Manjaro: https://manjaro.org/download/arm8-raspberry-pi-4-xfce/
So, no doubt there will be more. Supporting Raspberry Pi is probably a good idea. Adding support for things like ports, I2C, sensors, etc. to Euphoria would be nice, too.
12. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by Bhupen1277 Sep 06, 2019
- 836 views
I have stayed with 4.05 0r 4.06. I have four installations of Windows 10 running, and I suppose I could install the latest version to test on one of them.
13. Re: Question re: testing platforms
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Sep 06, 2019
- 849 views
There appear to be a couple of true 64-bit OS's available for the Pi 4:
Right, but just like the "we support the Windows that Microsoft supports," we should also stick to Raspbian since it's the official distro. Although I'm sure there'll be little issue building on those other distros. I'm working on simplifying the build process to make that more accessible.
So, no doubt there will be more. Supporting Raspberry Pi is probably a good idea. Adding support for things like ports, I2C, sensors, etc. to Euphoria would be nice, too.
https://github.com/ghaberek/wiringPi-euphoria
-Greg