1. OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by jessedavis in December
- 1522 views
Please refer to my last several posts regarding the archives and win32lib. This has turned into a nightmare of epic proportions.
After trying several versions of win32lib I picked the one with the fewest errors and went hunting. I changed the code to be what
I thought it should be. I finally got a win32lib that works using eu4.XX.
The most common problem was the person that wrote (edited, reworked) the code was using reserved words as variables; i.e. integer continue, routine, etc.
or things like using seq instead of sequence. Am I missing something here? Is there a different Euphoria I should be using?
I use the forum, wiki, and downloads for my information.
I am truly getting tired of chasing code of dubious value around the web: sourceforge, github, box and private sites. Why throw away
twenty years of code? Why not have a curated spot to keep this stuff?
I'm getting too old for this.
Happy New Year. I hope this gets better next year.
Regards,
jd
2. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by katsmeow in December
- 1495 views
There a term for this problem: "upgrades".
And, 20 years ago, no one except me was begging people to upload their program as an entire stand-alone package. They'd upload the bare minimum that used the include files on their computer. Up to you to find all those included files, and as you can see, the correct versions.
I think at one point, win32lib was being changed on this forum every day, with no version changes, and then could be released minus some of those edits.
And then OE broke Eu in so many unforeseen ways.
And so did forced OS "upgrades". I got a notice this morning that my current OS is no longer "supported" by an application i run.
Kat
3. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by SDPringle in February
- 1238 views
Finally on Linux people use AppImages because external dependencies are such a bane with maintaining a computer system. It was okay when it was visual basic because you just needed vbrun300.dll and you were fine but the way the libraries change these days makes AppImages necessary. Yes, devs should bundle the include files.
4. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by ChrisB (moderator) in March
- 1186 views
Hi
A while ago I also did a rework, with the goal of getting it to work under Eu4.1, and Phix. I came to the point where I had a working Win32Lib with eu4.1 (as tested against Judiths' IDE, but also with adjustments in the IDE. The use of reserved words was a constant issue - I still get the occasional one thrown, but as said, I have a working system now.
This is likely to be at variance with yours, which may mean more divergence in the future.
If you are confident yours work all encompassingley (?) with the current eu4.1, and IDE, then I would be happy to take mine off public access, and just use yours. If others agree this could become the recommended win32 lib for eu, pointed to on the install page.
I also thing that EU (and I've been saying this for years) should have an integrated editor and IDE - such that when you start 'Euphoria' you start with an editor, with a one button click to an IDE, so avoiding the necessity to install these items separately.
Cheers
Chris
5. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by SDPringle 2 months ago
- 586 views
We the Open Euphoria group introduced many flow control statements into Euphoria which broke code because many previously used variables became code words. So, it really isn't the fault of the authors of the IDE. You could say it was ours. Right now the idea of never having the "continue" key word seems strange. The keyword "exit" was in 3.1 but "continue", I guess it was us or them depending on the date it happened. The code that uses continue as a variable has never run on 4.0. Keywords "routine" were added later with the idea that even later on it could be used for something.
6. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) 4 days ago
- 74 views
There a term for this problem: "upgrades". And then OE broke Eu in so many unforeseen ways.
And so did forced OS "upgrades". I got a notice this morning that my current OS is no longer "supported" by an application i run.
Kat
Exactly this. At least with FOSS, we can try to get it working again... and SDPringle nailed down exactly why win32lib broke.
And, 20 years ago, no one except me was begging people to upload their program as an entire stand-alone package. They'd upload the bare minimum that used the include files on their computer. Up to you to find all those included files, and as you can see, the correct versions.
More like 30, but yeah. At least it's somewhat understandable - in the days when most folks only had dialup internet, and not even the good 56k kind, every byte was precious. Before the Linux kernel was formed, there was a similar situation with Minix - folks trying to turn Minix into a full fledged OS (as opposed to a study object as intended by its original author) likewise only distributed sets of patches. It's easy to see why most everyone went to Linux from Minix.
20 years ago - as far back as 2003 I was working on combine.ex - a utility that would grab all the include files and stuff it together. In 2010, I committed the version version of eudist.ex into the OE source based on that. So the devs did try to address this problem...
7. Re: OMG is nothing sacred?
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) 2 days ago
- 33 views
20 years ago - as far back as 2003 I was working on combine.ex - a utility that would grab all the include files and stuff it together. In 2010, I committed the version version of eudist.ex into the OE source based on that. So the devs did try to address this problem...
I agree this is a mostly a tooling problem. After I get 4.2 published, I'd like to take a crack at project and package management, a la Ruby Gems or Rust Crates.
Final distribution and packaging are entirely up to the developer, but having guides on how to make Windows installers and DEB/RPM packages would be useful.
-Greg
