1. a day late replyingRe: another one bites the dust
- Posted by Alan Tu <alantu at STUDENTS.UIUC.EDU>
Mar 26, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 27, 2000
I realize I am a day late replying to Joel's original message. I came back
with 143 messages in my inbox (about maybe 10 non-EU list messages).
Anyway, I wish to make a couple comments.
To me, it is a bit disappointing. If anyone had any illusions that Euphoria
was going to go into the mainstream of the mainstream, that hasn't happened
(or maybe I'm wrong about that). And the list (another related but different
issue) can get a bit crowded with messages, but not unlike other mailing
list or a newsgroup. But perhaps we can say Euphoria had a niche.
Many beginning programmers may not be able to handle compilers. I know that
if I went from QBasic to Java, I'd be worse off now than when I went from
Euphoria to Java. So I think we can admit that Euphoria is "good for
newbies". But I think that's good.
A ton of stuff has had to be developed outside of RDS: Win32lib and Winsock.
If people are willing to do the work, then I don't see why not. People are
creating very cool programs. I believe many Euphorians know C/C++, but I'm
sure there are a set of programs people would rather like to write in EU
rather than C. And my machine isn't going to crash with Euphoria nearly as
much as with C. You know, I don't like machine crashes.
I just registered EU yesterday. Because I want to write bigger programs,
better programs, that people are going to think are cool. I can't do these
programs in QBasic. I don't need to use a (slower interpreter) Java where I
need to run javac and then java. And I don't need all those semicolons as
with C (and Java). Euphoria is simple yet powerful. It is pretty stable. And
most programs can take under a meg of memory. That is why Euphoria is my
favored language right now.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Crook" <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 11:33 PM
Subject: another one bites the dust
> just a note to say I'm dropping off the list...
>
> of late it's been real
>
> and it's been fun
>
> but it ain't been real fun.
>
> I have been left with the impression that my registering Euphoria was a
> waste of $40.
>
> While the concepts of ATOMs and Sequences are excellent ideas, the
> implimentation of the language leaves me wondering why so much of the
> language is in "Stamped" files rather than compiled into it and why so
much
> of the language was NOT written by the guy making the money from it.
>
> I can hear the refrain "Because it would slow it down." or "Because it
> would be too big." To the same size and speed as Qbasic, perhaps? The
> reality is. folks, that what the man behind the curtain is not saying is:
> size and speed play a big part in why Euphoria drags along as an
> interpreter.
>
> A while ago I was chastised for my opinions on "older technology" and
> people's ability to pay... etc. etc. The truth is (in my useless opinion)
> this is Euphoria's main sales market: 386's and 286's and it is the
reason
> Rob is in no hurry to upgrade the language with features which won't work
> on his bread and butter.
>
> I do give RDS credit for producing an interpreter --- It is not easy to
> create a language --- I swallow real hard everytime a look at doing that
> and then flinch but there are full blown commercial quality programming
> products out there that are freeware, GPL'd or otherwise, that will beat
> the pants off of Euphoria.
>
> Try lcc-win32 with BCX or Max Reason's GPL'd XBasic ( for Win and Linux)
> not to mention Borland's Turbo Museum. Don't like freeware want to pay for
> it? FirstBasic $25 for dos from PowerBasic, Or OmniBasic for DOS Win,
> Linux $29 for the personal version. These are COMPILERS not an interpreter
> and will beat the pants off of Euphoria's execution speed.
>
> Each of those languages have their drawbacks but less so than listening to
> grumpy folks call each other names and dealing a language that has less
and
> less going for it.
>
> Euphoria could be a great language but as it stands it will continue to be
> a "toy" language created by one guy who is assisted by other folks, who in
> the genius and spirit of Rube Goldberg, manage to tack things on to it,
so
> it can continue to function.
>
> Wouldn't the effort be better spent in other ways? Like turning it into a
> compiler? Like giving it a standard set of c-like or pascal like calling
> routines. As it stands it is a fatherless child of C with an irrational
> upbringing.
>
> I congratulate each of you on your contributions to keeping Rob in
> business. You have done an excellent job, I hope you will feel the same
way
> when he releases the next version... If he ever does...
>
> As with all things, we chose to do what we do, and choose to say what we
> believe. Should I spend the time to put up with listening to BS from
people
> who should know better or move on to other things that are more
productive?
>
> I look at the words of this group and say it's time to move on. I can hear
> your electronic sigh of relief...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel H. Crook
>
> "A Strong house is built upon a strong foundation. What are your beliefs
> built upon?" -- "The Book of Reminders"
>
