1. What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 12, 2002
Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
I say no.
No, because most people do not know or care what language their
applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and most
productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
VisualWhooPas-2.0?
Didn't think so.
No, because any competent programmer knows that any app can be
written in any language. What matters is _how easily_ it can be written
in a given language.
What DO we need?
To make Euphoria more popular among programmers ~ who else is going
to use it? ~ we need to honestly evaluate where Euphoria excels, and where
it fails. RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong points:
speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't enough.
Consider Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Rebol.....
Euphoria is smaller and faster than any of the above.
Euphoria is more readable than perl or java, and (arguably) python and ruby
as well.
Yet perl, python, java and ruby each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users
as Euphoria. Why? If you really expect Euphoria to be more popular, you'll
have to be able to answer that question.
Let's see what you think.
Regards,
Irv
2. Re: What we really need...
Irv wrote:
> Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> I say no.
Depends what you mean by killer app. Would that be a standalone
super-product or something that allows you to build one a standalone
super-product better and faster than using the base language?
> No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and most
> productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
> VisualWhooPas-2.0?
>
> Didn't think so.
I sometimes make an exception to this if the app seems buggy then I find it
was written in VB. ;)
> What DO we need?
A good swift kick? ... Just kidding.
> [...] RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong points:
> speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't enough.
> Euphoria is smaller and faster [...] Yet perl, python, java and ruby
> each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users as Euphoria. Why?
To return to the point I was trying to make at the beginning; I can't think
of many killer apps in any of the languages you mention. The thing that
makes each of them popular is one thing: code base...
Perl has arguably the largest online repository of user code on the planet.
And the built-in text-processing capabilities are astounding.
Sun wrote a virtual infinitude of classes for Java - there's so much
available there that it seems you shouldn't need to write any original code
in that language if you can just find the right libraries.
Python, like Perl, has so much stuff built into the main language from the
outset that people gravitate, convinced their job would be easier.
Ruby I don't know too much about, but from what I've seen, they started out
from a small band of fanatics who raved about it everywhere they went
online. Sort of a Ruby missionary project.
What do I suggest we do?
We could adopt all strategies - write top notch libraries, then go forth and
spread the word of the mighty Object Sequence advertising our libraries
along the way. Convert people from the Heathen Otherlanguages! This ain't
just Snake Oil!
Ahem.
Or we could be a bit more subtle.
Either way, if we want Euphoria to be big (and we should be careful what we
wish for here) we can't sit around like we are doing. We need to motivate.
Carl - All hail the Object Sequence. :)
3. Re: What we really need...
Irv wrote:
> Yet perl, python, java and ruby each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many u=
sers
> as Euphoria. Why? If you really expect Euphoria to be more popular, you=
'll
> have to be able to answer that question.
I used to consider the biggest problem with Euphoria was that the source =
code=20
wasn't available, so people had to constantly re-invent the wheel instead=
of=20
using existing C/C++ libraries.
However, I've found an open source programming language called Lua. Like=20
Euphoria, It's lightweight, structured, fast, and built around a simple y=
et=20
powerful data structure. Unlike Euphoria, Lua *is* completely free, and=20
interfaces well to C/C++ libraries.=20
And like Euphoria, Lua is also virtually unknown, despite having been use=
d on=20
some high-profile projects, such as "The Curse of Monkey Island."
My conclusion: both occupy a niche that there doesn't have a lot of deman=
d.=20
People seem to prefer more features and bloat over faster execution. The =
same=20
features that make Euphoria attractive to the current user base make it=20
unattractive to the larger programming community.
Is this necessarily a problem to be solved? As long as the user base is=20
sufficient to support Robert, I'm not sure that there's an issue here.
-- David Cuny
4. Re: What we really need...
Hello Irv,
To see some iteration to the real situation we can visit :
http://download.com.com/3150-2069-0-1-4.html
and check the Total number of downloads for the different languages
from this site.
Euphoria is *popular* language, and only it is marked as *simple*
and *powerful*.
Rob doesn't care about such the counts, so we do not know
how many downloads was from the own RDS sites for
the Windows/Dos/Linux/FreeBSD versions.
Then, I think some EU people just do their job, write the
programs and just keep the silence about their tools to avoid
extra talking.
There are about 350 known authors in RDS archive and about 350
subscribers on this list, but from March about 23000 programmers
got the Win/Dos *EU version 2.3* just from download.com.
Compare 23000 and 350 please, do you see some the latent
*power* of Euphoria programmers?
We just know nothing about those
much more than 22650 members of EU2.3 community
in 61 registered countries !
Euphoria is Powerful and Popular right Now !
Don't worry be happy !
All we need we'll write in Euphoria! 
We do not need any killers, you are right !
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
----------
> Îò: irv at take.maxleft.com
> Êîìó: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> Òåìà: What we really need...
> Äàòà: 12 íîÿáðÿ 2002 ã. 12:03
>
> Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> I say no.
>
> No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and most
> productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
> VisualWhooPas-2.0?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> No, because any competent programmer knows that any app can be
> written in any language. What matters is _how easily_ it can be written
> in a given language.
>
> What DO we need?
>
> To make Euphoria more popular among programmers ~ who else is going
> to use it? ~ we need to honestly evaluate where Euphoria excels, and
where
> it fails. RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong
points:
> speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't enough.
>
> Consider Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Rebol.....
> Euphoria is smaller and faster than any of the above.
> Euphoria is more readable than perl or java, and (arguably) python and
ruby
> as well.
>
> Yet perl, python, java and ruby each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many
users
> as Euphoria. Why? If you really expect Euphoria to be more popular,
you'll
> have to be able to answer that question.
>
> Let's see what you think.
> Regards,
> Irv
5. Re: What we really need...
"Irv"
>Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular? I say no.
I say maybe. One year ago I looked into ALICE-app. It was written in =
Java. It put me off. Today ALICE has been rewritten into several =
languages, including PHP. That makes PHP more attractive to me.
"Irv"
>No, because any competent programmer knows that any app can be=20
>written in any language. What matters is _how easily_ it can be written =
>in a given language. .......... we need to honestly evaluate where=20
>Euphoria excels, and where it fails.=20
"Ray Smith"
>I agree ... developers aren't worried about bloat, who cares if it's a=20
>10MB (or even 50MB) download to install a development system.
>Who cares if the software you write needs a 5MB or 10MB install and =
will
>only run on a PII PC with 64MB ram (except Igor :)).
If a language is very big it becomes less suitable for server side =
programming.
Is Delphi suitable for web programming? You can.... but you will find =
extremely few 3rd party components for that ... not much used for that?
I think one should use one language for windows programming and another =
language (PHP?) for web programming. Web programming isn't windows =
programming. It isn't Linux programming either.
Personally I miss a language with a good native windows IDE, .... but =
that is essensially a web deployment language.
Rom
6. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Nov 12, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: <thomas at columbus.rr.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: What we really need...
> Maybe some of it has to do with the web site? I personally think that it
> could use a bit of tuning up,
Isnt that funny, I said the very same thing years ago.
Get rid of the "PINK" on the site and the "Gay" swash
that resides around the Euphoria name. and things may pickup
BTW, No offence to the openly Gay community.
Also, have a Top 10 apps section to promote the language
in several areas
1) Graphics
2) Speed
3) Web enable (CGI's,XML parsers) T Parslow's XML parser is great!
4) Our beloved Win32lib of course. Plus Judiths wonderfull IDE
5) Tools for TCPIP
6) A Game or two
7) Hashing routines
8) Math (Kats Big Num (when released))
9) Hacker utilities (hex editor, scripts, EDB to Tsunami or SQL or any other
DDE)
10) And Don Phillips EuNexus Project or MEdit
a) ofcource Don would need to get rid of that MSC .dll he uses
11) Apps written for the other O/S's (IRV)
Perhaps stop touting Euphoria as the easiest language to learn by saying
"JUST SAY NO TO COMPLICATED PROGRAMMING LANGAUGES"
this makes Euphoria appear to not have enough functionalilty.
This is only an opinionated suggestion!
Besides, when I started using Euphoria there were less than a hand full of
users on the listserve so things are slowly growing.
Regards,
Euman
7. Re: What we really need...
> Naa, some of my most popular sites which contain really top notch
> software that I frequent have *horrible* websites. I dont *go* there
> for the web site. I go there for the software. I could care less how a
> particular page looks.
I believe that the RDS site needs more relevant content.
If you're not going to provide articles on "general programming" to satiate
the newbies, at least provide LINKS to those sites that do teach that stuff.
And get the EUPHORIA reference material ONLINE, properly cross-linked etc...
And put up a section for articles written by users. Categorize these and I'm
sure we would soon have a huge knowledge base from the mailing list users
alone.
My beef with the site would be content, not aesthetics, though aesthetics
plays a huge role in accessing the content. ;)
8. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 12, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:05 am, Chris B. wrote:
>
> Frankly, I would be surprised if Robert Craig manages to make a profit,
> considering all the time he invests.
>
So would I. On the other hand, I doubt Larry Wall or Guido van Rossum are
starving, and they make nothing from the sale of their languages.
Obviously, they both make money from the sale of their books, and they stay
employed as a result of their ability to put the language they invented to
good use. And they are in demand as speakers for geek-oriented gatherings.
They (and O'Reilly) can sell books and conduct seminars because other people
want to learn how to use the languages.
The questions are: how to get other people to want to use Euphoria?
Irv
9. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Nov 12, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Phillips" <EuNexus at yahoo.com>
> > 10) And Don Phillips EuNexus Project or MEdit
> > a) ofcource Don would need to get rid of that MSC .dll he uses
>
> a) <<-- Hah! Fat chance =)
@&## with a Y
>Win32Lib does a superb job of hiding
superb???
> the details of what is going on behind the scenes. API programming is
> not for the faint of heart.
Yeah atleast its your code and you can fix it to work like you want it to.
>There are more constants, data types, and
> structures than you can shake a stick at. I have one file at home
> *one*, which is about 55k full of nothing but constants. Nothing else.
AGREED.
> Point? It is easier for me to code API in just about any other language
> than Euphoria because of structure support. Heck, the top three
> assembly languages I use all have structures. I find it unfortunate
> that Windows is so reliant on these things. I find it even more so that
> Euphoria does not directly support them.
>
> Trying to program API structures with Euphoria is like pulling teeth.
> If done directly via peeks and pokes, its nice and fast. Its also hard
> to read and maintain.
Don,
Ive been writting in C and using Masm32 myself and this Euphoria snippet
is what I use to make code smaller and faster. Just a very small snipp..
constant
sizeof_trm = 32 -- Size of trm structure
atom trm
trm = allocate(sizeof_trm)
mem_set(trm,0,32)
constant
trm_Op = trm + 0, -- Tsunami operation number
trm_File = trm + 4, -- Tsunami file handle
trm_DataPtr = trm + 8, -- Address of data buffer
trm_DataLen = trm + 12, -- Length of data buffer
trm_KeyPtr = trm + 16, -- Address of key buffer
trm_KeyLen = trm + 24, -- Length of key buffer
trm_KeyNo = trm + 28 -- Key number
->>>> is definatly better than
trm_Op = allocate(4)
trm_File = allocate(4)
trm_DataPtr = allocate(4)
trm_DataLen = allocate(4)
trm_KeyPtr = allocate(4)
trm_KeyLen = allocate(4)
trm_KeyNo = allocate(4)
and then peek4( ) each time you need access to a particular part of the
struct sucks.
Also, when you peek or poke a value you eliminate the extra "addition" (+)
required
e.g, poke4(trm + trm_Op,val) -- why not do this only once at the start of
your proggy.
Maybe this is hard for some to understand but for me this seems easier and
besides
is obviously faster with less messy code.
And if you really look at the code I presented you'll know Im well on my way
to completing
the wrappers for the Tsunami Record Managment system.
BTW, I'll be using the EDS procedure names, so cross over into Tsunami will
be a breeze
if you choose to use it.
Euman
>
>
>
>
10. Re: What we really need...
On 12 Nov 2002, at 3:37, David Cuny wrote:
>
> Irv wrote:
>
> > Yet perl, python, java and ruby each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users
> > as
> > Euphoria. Why? If you really expect Euphoria to be more popular, you'll have
> > to be able to answer that question.
>
> I used to consider the biggest problem with Euphoria was that the source code
> wasn't available, so people had to constantly re-invent the wheel instead of
> using existing C/C++ libraries.
>
> However, I've found an open source programming language called Lua. Like
> Euphoria, It's lightweight, structured, fast, and built around a simple yet
> powerful data structure. Unlike Euphoria, Lua *is* completely free, and
> interfaces well to C/C++ libraries.
Lua has expression eval too, execution of strings. But it won't run here, i
tried it a couple yrs ago. I suspected for a while that mirc was written in Lua,
since mirc is so versatile too. The thing is, Eu and mirc don't need
compilers, Eu is click and it runs, mirc too. Finding new ways to get a
language to do what i need, where and when i need it, is not the reason i sit
down at the keybd every day. I can get Eu to do what i need on win95.
Running it anywhere else, usefully, seems like it may be impossible.
Kat
11. Re: What we really need...
>From: irv at take.maxleft.com
>Subject: What we really need...
>
>
>Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
>I say no.
And why would we need to make Euphoria more popular?
>==^^===============================================================
>This email was sent to: dubetyrant at hotmail.com
>
>
12. Re: What we really need...
On 12 Nov 2002, at 13:53, dubetyrant at hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >From: irv at take.maxleft.com
> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> >Subject: What we really need...
> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 04:03:44 -0500
> >
> >
> >Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> >I say no.
>
>
> And why would we need to make Euphoria more popular?
It's a chicken-egg problem.
1) More popular means more money for RobC, incentive to change the
language for the users, and more functionality.
2) Changes to the language would make it more useable, easier, and more
popular, but there is no money in it immeadiately.
Us annoying loudmouths are a minority and all we can do is press for #2,
until (if ever) there is a #1. Or like David Cuny (and others) said and did,
move to another language like Lua, Python, or Perl (ewwwww). Getting RobC
to add things these other languages have is like getting him to lay the egg,
but we can't have chicken for dinner till that egg hatches and grows up.
Kat
13. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 12, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 01:53 pm, dube wrote:
>
> >Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> >I say no.
>
> And why would we need to make Euphoria more popular?
Surely you already know the answers to that question.
If not, here are just a couple:
If Euphoria were more popular, even semi-popular, like Ruby:
O'Reilly would publish, and people could buy, books on programming with
Euphoria. Currently, there are none.
Popularity would attract more experienced programmers.
More experienced programmers would write stable, well-tested, and
well-documented libraries for others to use.
Are these not "Good Things"?
Regards,
Irv
14. Re: What we really need...
> If Euphoria were more popular, even semi-popular, like Ruby:
>
> O'Reilly would publish, and people could buy, books on
> programming with Euphoria. Currently, there are none.
Just because it's not popular doesn't mean there can't be books written for
it. Maybe if there were books for it that would attract more users... :)
However, I know there are lots of people on this list, and more registered
users out there, who could write a book for EUPHORIA. I would if I could
find the time. I know there are some college guys out there who have the
time... or maybe some retirees... :)
> More experienced programmers would write stable, well-tested, and
> well-documented libraries for others to use.
Yes, that would be nice!
More people = more brain power
15. Re: What we really need...
On 12 Nov 2002, at 14:15, Igor Kachan wrote:
>
> Hello Irv,
>
> To see some iteration to the real situation we can visit :
>
> http://download.com.com/3150-2069-0-1-4.html
>
> and check the Total number of downloads for the different languages
> from this site.
>
> Euphoria is *popular* language, and only it is marked as *simple*
> and *powerful*.
>
> Rob doesn't care about such the counts, so we do not know
> how many downloads was from the own RDS sites for
> the Windows/Dos/Linux/FreeBSD versions.
> There are about 350 known authors in RDS archive and about 350
> subscribers on this list, but from March about 23000 programmers
> got the Win/Dos *EU version 2.3* just from download.com.
Problem is, i think most of those downloads are curiosity, and they don't
use
it. Most people who get to the irc channel can't get Eu to install, cannot
connect it to anything existing, or don't know they need libs from the
archives to do the bulk of anything useful.
Small, i suppose, but then add in win32lib, misc.e, strtok, everything for
tcp4u, 1000 lines of a gui lib when one window() should be fine, etc etc,,
and
it's not small anymore. These days of CDs, 40gig harddrives, 32bit OSs
(soon to be 64bit, sheesh), i don't think fitting on a floppy is relavant
(or that
many people know what a floppy is anymore), but functionality is.
On 12 Nov 2002, at 12:38, Ray Smith wrote:
<snip>
> The current Euphoria business model will never compete with these
> languages. Anyone who wants Euphoria to be anything that it currently
> isn't will be very disappointed.
>
> Saying all that I still like Euphoria,
> if Euphoria can do the job you want that's great,
> if it can't do what you want and "you personally" can't make it do what
> you want, then it most likely won't do what you want in the near future.
> Everyone makes their own choice.
>
> My comments might sound negative (and they are) ...
> nothing I have seen in the last 3 or 4 years makes me believe Euphoria
> in the future will be anything different to what it is now.
> (Yes the number and quality of Euphoria libraries are improving but
> at a slower rate than the competition ... it will never catch up)
I haveto agree, after the fiasco with using it on nix recently.
On 12 Nov 2002, at 10:00, euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
<snip>
> 5) Tools for TCPIP
On any platform.
> 8) Math (Kats Big Num (when released))
Check out Matts.
> Perhaps stop touting Euphoria as the easiest language to learn by saying
> "JUST SAY NO TO COMPLICATED PROGRAMMING LANGAUGES"
> this makes Euphoria appear to not have enough functionalilty.
Problem is, it doesn't have a logical reason for that. Marketting a non-
reasonable line to logical programmers won't go far. Rob doesn't want to
add
the innovative (altho now more common) features, or functionality that
makes
programming easier, instead it's striving to keep it *small*. And run fast
on a
386 with dos4.
On 12 Nov 2002, at 15:11, Chris Bensler wrote:
> The site does look a bit old fashioned.
>
> And considering that the majority of Eu's new users, are novice
> programmers, there is no learning materials available. Eu will be
> quickly sluffed off, for even the crappiest language, as long as it has
> something that can help them learn the language.
> And no, ABGTE is not good enough. Personally, I thought is was a huge
> help, but I seem to be of the minority.
Well, you saw my comments on lack of docs for using Eu on a nix shell. I
find docs so important, i am writting them for the irc net, and for two of
the
bigger Eu includes.
On 12 Nov 2002, at 11:50, irv at take.maxleft.com wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:05 am, Chris B. wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I would be surprised if Robert Craig manages to make a
profit,
> > considering all the time he invests.
> >
>
> So would I. On the other hand, I doubt Larry Wall or Guido van Rossum
are
> starving, and they make nothing from the sale of their languages.
>
> Obviously, they both make money from the sale of their books, and they
stay
> employed as a result of their ability to put the language they invented
to
good
> use. And they are in demand as speakers for geek-oriented gatherings.
>
> They (and O'Reilly) can sell books and conduct seminars because other
people
> want to learn how to use the languages.
>
> The questions are: how to get other people to want to use Euphoria?
Well, when Khaled was donating money from mirc registrations to some 9-11
fund, i think i figured he is pulling in $28,000 a month, just from those
who
registered. Not bad for a hobby.
I still hold to what i said years ago, merge Eu with mirc, and you'll
*really*
have something. Or with Lua,, TCL, etc....
Kat
16. Re: What we really need...
Irv Mullins writes:
> If Euphoria were more popular, even semi-popular, like Ruby:
>
> O'Reilly would publish, and people could buy,
> books on programming with Euphoria.
> Currently, there are none.
Bill Aitken, wmaitken at hotmail.com, who has
had technical books published before, indicated a month ago,
that he is going to write a (hard-copy) book on Euphoria,
including Win32Lib stuff, and bundle it with a CD-ROM
containing the Euphoria installation package and
many of the best user contributions.
If people send e-mail to him it might encourage him
to proceed.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
17. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 12, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 04:21 pm, Rob C. wrote:
> Bill Aitken, wmaitken at hotmail.com, who has
> had technical books published before, indicated a month ago,
> that he is going to write a (hard-copy) book on Euphoria,
> including Win32Lib stuff, and bundle it with a CD-ROM
> containing the Euphoria installation package and
> many of the best user contributions.
>
> If people send e-mail to him it might encourage him
> to proceed.
Now that is a good idea. He certainly should include Judith's IDE there,
(assuming she gives permission). That is one app written in Euphoria
which is as good as, and sometimes better than, similar commercial efforts.
It is, for example, easier to use and more stable than my copy of Delphi -
which is what I would be using if the IDE didn't exist.
Regards,
Irv
18. Re: What we really need...
You know...
23000 downloads doesn't necissarily mean that much.
I don't know about you guys, but I found the default editor extremely hard
to use, and it took me quite a while to figure out the language without
tutorials (there weren't any back then, so that's improved at least.) I
think there will be a lot of people who downloaded, and deleted after giving
up on it.
I'd like to see a much slicker interface to the user, at least when they're
beginning.
For example:
An installer for euphoria that had:
File associations in the registry
automated setup.
An included editor that was windows based, with:
context-sensitive help for anything in library.doc and win32lib.htm
auto-complete
clipboard support (copy-paste)
keyword colouring
links to examples.. or a windows-based tutorial, that demonstrate
use of EACH procedure or control or function
A walkthrough of the languages features, and a more indepth tutorial
I know this exists in some of the docs already, but it could be
improved in it's 'bells and whistles' - for lack of a better term.
it's awfully plain right now.
example code explanations, and perhaps 'canned' traces of these
programs in a windows format.
win32lib included, and tutorial programs for it part of the walkthrough.
I would be quite happy to put my time towards developing a tutorial program,
and working on the installer.
Do you people think this sort of project would be worthwhile?
=====================================================
.______<-------------------\__
/ _____<--------------------__|===
||_ <-------------------/
\__| Mr Trick
>From: Igor Kachan <kinz at peterlink.ru>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: Re: What we really need...
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:15:41 +0300
>
>
>Hello Irv,
>
>To see some iteration to the real situation we can visit :
>
>http://download.com.com/3150-2069-0-1-4.html
>
>and check the Total number of downloads for the different languages
>from this site.
>
>Euphoria is *popular* language, and only it is marked as *simple*
>and *powerful*.
>
>Rob doesn't care about such the counts, so we do not know
>how many downloads was from the own RDS sites for
>the Windows/Dos/Linux/FreeBSD versions.
>
>Then, I think some EU people just do their job, write the
>programs and just keep the silence about their tools to avoid
>extra talking.
>
>There are about 350 known authors in RDS archive and about 350
>subscribers on this list, but from March about 23000 programmers
>got the Win/Dos *EU version 2.3* just from download.com.
>
>Compare 23000 and 350 please, do you see some the latent
>*power* of Euphoria programmers?
>
>We just know nothing about those
>much more than 22650 members of EU2.3 community
>in 61 registered countries !
>
>Euphoria is Powerful and Popular right Now !
>
>Don't worry be happy !
>
>All we need we'll write in Euphoria!
>
>We do not need any killers, you are right !
>
>Regards,
>Igor Kachan
>kinz at peterlink.ru
>
>----------
> > Îò: irv at take.maxleft.com
> > Êîìó: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Òåìà: What we really need...
> > Äàòà: 12 íîÿáðÿ 2002 ã. 12:03
> >
> > Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> > I say no.
> >
> > No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> > applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and most
> > productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
> > VisualWhooPas-2.0?
> >
> > Didn't think so.
> >
> > No, because any competent programmer knows that any app can be
> > written in any language. What matters is _how easily_ it can be written
> > in a given language.
> >
> > What DO we need?
> >
> > To make Euphoria more popular among programmers ~ who else is going
> > to use it? ~ we need to honestly evaluate where Euphoria excels, and
>where
> > it fails. RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong
>points:
> > speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't enough.
> >
> > Consider Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Rebol.....
> > Euphoria is smaller and faster than any of the above.
> > Euphoria is more readable than perl or java, and (arguably) python and
>ruby
> > as well.
> >
> > Yet perl, python, java and ruby each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many
>users
> > as Euphoria. Why? If you really expect Euphoria to be more popular,
>you'll
> > have to be able to answer that question.
> >
> > Let's see what you think.
> > Regards,
> > Irv
>
>==^^===============================================================
>This email was sent to: mistertrik at hotmail.com
>
>
19. Re: What we really need...
Kat wrote:
> Or like David Cuny (and others) said and did, move to=20
> another language like Lua, Python, or Perl (ewwwww).=20
Actually, I foolishly decided to write my own language.
Robert gets a *lot* more sympathy from me now.
-- David Cuny
20. Re: What we really need...
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Chris Bensler" <bensler at mail.com>
> If you can make just the installer with..
> -optional standard/custom install
> -optional registry modifications
> -uninstall
> -a mechanism for including add-on packages with the
> installer/uninstaller
> These things would be a big help, IMO. Maybe you could modify the=20
> existing win32 installer... :/
Why not use Inno setup http://www.jrsoftware.org/is3.php for windows =
setup? No work at all.
Rom
21. Re: What we really need...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:05:49 -0500, euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
>>Win32Lib does a superb job of hiding
>
>superb???
Er, yes, for us numbskulls anyways.
>
>> the details of what is going on behind the scenes. API programming is
>> not for the faint of heart.
>
>Yeah atleast its your code and you can fix it to work like you want it to.
Euman, even a numbskull like me can edit my copy of win32lib.ew when &
where needed to get it to work. Yes, I have needed to, and No, I would
never have managed to write the equivalent myself. What's your beef?
<OUCH>I think I just headbutted a brick wall there</OUCH>
<snip>
>Also, when you peek or poke a value you eliminate the extra "addition" (+)
>required
>e.g, poke4(trm + trm_Op,val) -- why not do this only once at the start of
>your proggy.
>
>Maybe this is hard for some to understand but for me this seems easier and
>besides is obviously faster with less messy code.
Neater it is, plus, I hazard, allocate(4) allocate(16) allocate(8) is
by no means guaranteed to return consecutive addresses...
Pete
22. Re: What we really need...
--- euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
> Besides, when I started using Euphoria there were
> less than a hand full of
> users on the listserve so things are slowly growing.
>
I have been monitoring the listserv subscriptions
since the release of 2.3 and I have been very
disappointed to note very, very little increase, if
any.. it appeared that subscription volume peaked at
close to 400, but in retrospect it may have just been
bloat - duplicates.
>
>
>
>
23. Re: Re: What we really need...
Re: Kickstart Euphoria?
A good start would be translating abandonware PC games into Euphoria.
Then redistribute them as freeware after debugging them. Of course,
getting the author/copyright holder's view would be a good idea.
Is there any way to make the programs non-system specific, like with JAVA?
(UGH, I hate JAVA!)
>
> From: "Carl W." <euphoria at cyreksoft.yorks.com>
> Subject: Re: What we really need...
>
>
> Irv wrote:
>
> > Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> > I say no.
>
> Depends what you mean by killer app. Would that be a standalone
> super-product or something that allows you to build one a standalone
> super-product better and faster than using the base language?
>
> > No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> > applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and most
> > productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
> > VisualWhooPas-2.0?
> >
> > Didn't think so.
>
> I sometimes make an exception to this if the app seems buggy then I find it
> was written in VB. ;)
>
> > What DO we need?
>
> A good swift kick? ... Just kidding.
>
> > [...] RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong points:
> > speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't enough.
>
> > Euphoria is smaller and faster [...] Yet perl, python, java and ruby
> > each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users as Euphoria. Why?
>
> To return to the point I was trying to make at the beginning; I can't think
> of many killer apps in any of the languages you mention. The thing that
> makes each of them popular is one thing: code base...
>
> Perl has arguably the largest online repository of user code on the planet.
> And the built-in text-processing capabilities are astounding.
>
> Sun wrote a virtual infinitude of classes for Java - there's so much
> available there that it seems you shouldn't need to write any original code
> in that language if you can just find the right libraries.
>
> Python, like Perl, has so much stuff built into the main language from the
> outset that people gravitate, convinced their job would be easier.
>
> Ruby I don't know too much about, but from what I've seen, they started out
> from a small band of fanatics who raved about it everywhere they went
> online. Sort of a Ruby missionary project.
>
> What do I suggest we do?
>
> We could adopt all strategies - write top notch libraries, then go forth and
> spread the word of the mighty Object Sequence advertising our libraries
> along the way. Convert people from the Heathen Otherlanguages! This ain't
> just Snake Oil!
>
> Ahem.
>
> Or we could be a bit more subtle.
>
> Either way, if we want Euphoria to be big (and we should be careful what we
> wish for here) we can't sit around like we are doing. We need to motivate.
>
> Carl - All hail the Object Sequence. :)
>
>
>
>
" '...But this is one thought that has impressed me, Govinda. Wisdom is
not communicable. The wisdom which a wise man tries to communicate always sounds
foolish.'
'Are you jesting?' asked Govinda.
'No, I am telling you what I have discovered. Knowledge can be
communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, be fortified by it, do
wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it..." - fr. Siddhartha,
by Hermann
Hesse (1877-1962)
24. Re: Re: What we really need...
I'd love to see lemmings...
I think that they're still holding on to the copyright for that one though.
The beauty of that game is that it's quite simple to program, it's the
DESIGN of those levels that made them so addictive. Only JUST enough
resources to save enough lemmings, especially in the later levels.
=====================================================
.______<-------------------\__
/ _____<--------------------__|===
||_ <-------------------/
\__| Mr Trick
>From: david <mpenzi at bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: Re: Re: What we really need...
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:34:19 -0500
>
>
>Re: Kickstart Euphoria?
>
>A good start would be translating abandonware PC games into Euphoria.
>Then redistribute them as freeware after debugging them. Of course,
>getting the author/copyright holder's view would be a good idea.
>Is there any way to make the programs non-system specific, like with JAVA?
>(UGH, I hate JAVA!)
> >
> > From: "Carl W." <euphoria at cyreksoft.yorks.com>
> > Date: 2002/11/12 Tue AM 04:49:37 EST
> > To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Subject: Re: What we really need...
> >
> >
> > Irv wrote:
> >
> > > Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> > > I say no.
> >
> > Depends what you mean by killer app. Would that be a standalone
> > super-product or something that allows you to build one a standalone
> > super-product better and faster than using the base language?
> >
> > > No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> > > applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and
>most
> > > productive app just because you discovered that it had been written in
> > > VisualWhooPas-2.0?
> > >
> > > Didn't think so.
> >
> > I sometimes make an exception to this if the app seems buggy then I find
>it
> > was written in VB. ;)
> >
> > > What DO we need?
> >
> > A good swift kick? ... Just kidding.
> >
> > > [...] RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong points:
> > > speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't
>enough.
> >
> > > Euphoria is smaller and faster [...] Yet perl, python, java and ruby
> > > each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users as Euphoria. Why?
> >
> > To return to the point I was trying to make at the beginning; I can't
>think
> > of many killer apps in any of the languages you mention. The thing that
> > makes each of them popular is one thing: code base...
> >
> > Perl has arguably the largest online repository of user code on the
>planet.
> > And the built-in text-processing capabilities are astounding.
> >
> > Sun wrote a virtual infinitude of classes for Java - there's so much
> > available there that it seems you shouldn't need to write any original
>code
> > in that language if you can just find the right libraries.
> >
> > Python, like Perl, has so much stuff built into the main language from
>the
> > outset that people gravitate, convinced their job would be easier.
> >
> > Ruby I don't know too much about, but from what I've seen, they started
>out
> > from a small band of fanatics who raved about it everywhere they went
> > online. Sort of a Ruby missionary project.
> >
> > What do I suggest we do?
> >
> > We could adopt all strategies - write top notch libraries, then go forth
>and
> > spread the word of the mighty Object Sequence advertising our libraries
> > along the way. Convert people from the Heathen Otherlanguages! This
>ain't
> > just Snake Oil!
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > Or we could be a bit more subtle.
> >
> > Either way, if we want Euphoria to be big (and we should be careful what
>we
> > wish for here) we can't sit around like we are doing. We need to
>motivate.
> >
> > Carl - All hail the Object Sequence. :)
> >
> >
> " '...But this is one thought that has impressed me, Govinda. Wisdom
<snip>
>
>
25. Re: What we really need...
On 0, euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Also, have a Top 10 apps section to promote the language
> in several areas
> 1) Graphics
> 2) Speed
> 3) Web enable (CGI's,XML parsers) T Parslow's XML parser is great!
> 4) Our beloved Win32lib of course. Plus Judiths wonderfull IDE
> 5) Tools for TCPIP
> 6) A Game or two
> 7) Hashing routines
> 8) Math (Kats Big Num (when released))
> 9) Hacker utilities (hex editor, scripts, EDB to Tsunami or SQL or any other
> DDE)
> 10) And Don Phillips EuNexus Project or MEdit
> a) ofcource Don would need to get rid of that MSC .dll he uses
> 11) Apps written for the other O/S's (IRV)
>
My opinion, lets try to make Euphoria a little less Windows oriented
please.
I.E. Support it for _all_ platforms, not just promoting major windows
use.
Here are some things Eu could use:
1) OS specific calls, wrapped up in easy-to-call Eu libs.
2) GUI libs - Win32Lib, EuGTK, Llama/GTK, etc, but multi-platform.
3) Multi-platform Web util libs.
4) Tools for TCP/IP (and maybe UDP?) - like EuTCP4u, socketlib.eu, etc.
5) Very powerful math libs.
6) Games (for all platforms, not just DOS/Win)
7) Some *nix Hacker utils.
8) Multi-plaform graphics libs.
9) Multi-platform Emulated thread lib. (I'm working on a *nix version.)
10) Multi-platform IPC lib. (Like RDC.e, but which also works on
Windoze.)
Do that, and we have more people wanting to use Eu.
Now, add in-depth documentation for EACH one of these, explaining the
full use
of it to the _begining euphorian_, and we'll get Eu's popularity to
skyrocket!
(Well, there is the matter of promotion. Each of the libs will need to
become
as popular as Win32Lib.)
jbrown
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
--
26. Re: What we really need...
On 0, Chris Bensler <bensler at mail.com> wrote:
>
> Euphoria targets DOS oriented users. People now want everything GUI
> based. They don't want to interact with text any more than they have to.
> Eu doesn't meet this demand in much of any form.
Ha! Granted, the interpreter itself is DOS oriented - but look at the
number
of libs for Windows! And think about how popular Win32Lib is on this
list!
Euphoria is definately moving to Windows-oriented programming - Irv,
myself,
and a few others are working on helping the Linux/FreeBSD versions play
catch-up - but don't hold your breath.
>
> I think that most people use Euphoria for the _joy_ of programming, not
> the productivity. Having said that, one can only expect to gain
> popularity within the hobbyist niche. Right here alone, Eu must live up
> to a _special_ demand. As soon as Eu falls short of this expectation, it
> will rapidly fall out of favor, with even the small community it has.
Very true. However, if you'll notice, most of major Eu programming is
done
via open-source libs, such as Win32Lib, EuTCP4u, EuGTK, etc. As long as
Eu
stays the way it is, it doesnt RISK losing us. THe moment it changes, it
does.
>
> Typically, linux users want everything for free/open source. As part of
> the beauty of the linux community, the philosopy is "free for all". Eu
> doesn't quite meet this demand, although it's definitely reasonable.
If we follow that logic, Peu should have killed Euphoria by now.
Seriously, this is a problem. Euphoria shouldn't expect wide-spread
use on the *nix platform unless it is open-source (or has some sort of
heavy
coporate backing - which is even less likely to happen).
>
> And most of all, Eu does not interact well with other programming
> interfaces. Unless you want to build your own bricks, for almost every
> project you do, you will have to interface with external language
> modules. This IMO, completely contradicts EU's philosophy of simplicty.
>
I know that Python, Perl, Java, etc. need custom, hand-wrapped, C modules
to interface external calls into the language.
The problem isn't with interfacing with external modules, Euphoria makes
it
a trival (if tedious) exercise with C. (C++ interfacing needs some work,
I admit. But some one has done that in Windows, I think, and you rarely
see
C++ in *nix, who tend to graviate to C above all other languages.)
The real issue is that these languages have all the basic stuff
pre-wrapped
for the end programmer. In Euphoria, unless you use Win32Lib in Windows,
you have no way of doing anything involving OS calls without wrapping
them
yourself. (I'm gonna release a lib soon which has a lot of Linux libc
calls
and struct defs, but its still pretty small copmared to whats out there.)
So, if you want to compete in this factor, start writing libs to wrap up
standard interfaces and get Rob to include them as standard includes.
> Chris
Euphoria is pretty useful as it is - but one review I read of it compared
it
to things such as awk and sed. Euphoria _was_ faster than those, but the
fact
that Eu was compared to those tools would seem to make a point.
jbrown
--
http://fastmail.fm
Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are
27. Re: Re: What we really need...
On 0, Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au> wrote:
> * A cross platform GUI library! (I'm sure no more needs to said on
> this topic that has been beaten to death!)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> http://rays-web.com
>
I'm working on it! :)
I just need more time (and more co-developers might help too :), I'll
try to release an updated Llama/GTK in a few days.
Aside from DOS, Llama/GTK should work the same across all plaforms.
(Juergen, I'm looking for gtkdll-1.2 for Windows, if I find them I'll
include
them in the main llamagtk dist.)
jbrown
--
28. Re: What we really need...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:11:52 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at mail.com>
wrote:
>And no, ABGTE is not good enough.
Absolutely. How many people run that & think "oh, I can learn
something new and up-to-date from this?". Zero.
Were it not for David Cuny/Derek Parnell/Judith (et al) work on
win32lib & the IDE, I would be long gone.
What they have done is really great, but it would pale into
insignificance if Rob bit the bullet and made (one of)
wxWindows/FOX/Fltk/paragui/V or even Lua(?) part and parcel of the
official package. Until such time, claiming that Euphoria runs on
Linux I fear is met with derision. Who, really, would pay for Euphoria
on a Linux box when they have Python/Ruby/GTK/blah/blah for free?
One of Euphoria's touted points is cross platform; but without a cross
platform GUI, who cares?
Pete
PS(?) Not sure I mean Lua, but the one where the gui is defined in a
pre-cursor-to-XML-type-of-text thing
>> Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
The real cool 'killer app' we all actually want is just a *HUGE* demo
set which you can run & at any point press a button & it shows you the
code used to get what you just saw on the screen.
29. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 06:58 pm, Thomas wrote:
> You may not go to the web site for the web site itself, but I tend to
> see a web site like the front of a building. If you see a façade that
> looks like it hasn't been touched for 5 years, it's not going to matter
> that there are freshly baked cookies behind the broken glass and spider
> webs.
Exactly. It's an image thing.
RDS' website appears to be static (only the contrib page changes regularly).
Compare this with, for example http://www.perl.com
What do you see first? Right down the middle of the page, an ever-changing
selection of news, opinion and mini-tutorials on language features.
That gives the impression that people are busy using, and improving, perl.
First impressions are important - you may never get a chance to make a second
one.
> I think that if we can get a better layout for the site that promotes
> the archive, support (chat and forums) and learning materials a bit
> more, then there's a better chance of people staying at the site and
> learning more about the language before pounding into the download link
> thinking it's a miracle language. It's not, but it *is* extremely
> powerful.
I do wonder how many people try Eu, and just delete it after a few minutes.
I know that I have certainly done that with other languages - yes, I try
every one I can find on the web. If I can't figure out how to install or run
the package, I just delete it. It isn't worth the effort to search for a
mailing list and ask what is sure to be a series of dumb questions.
If there is a book on the language, I'm more likely to give it a try, since
that's a pretty good indication that at least one person actually got the
stuff to run.
Regards,
Irv
30. Re: Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 09:55 pm, Ray wrote:
>
> david wrote:
> > Re: Kickstart Euphoria?
> >
> > A good start would be translating abandonware PC games into Euphoria.
> > Then redistribute them as freeware after debugging them.
>
> [snip]
>
> As far as I can tell very few Euphoria people are interested
> (or at least active) in the area of game making.
Actually, newcomers to Euphoria often seem most interested in games.
Unfortunately, these are always people who have never tried writing a game.
Those who *have* tried already know that creating a playable game is perhaps
the most difficult programming task imaginable.
This is unfortunate, because many beginning programmers think that
a game would be 'cool'. (Hey, I thought it would be 'cool' to fly an F-16,
but I only got as far as a Cessna 152 Aerobat :) So they get discouraged and
give up.
> This suggestion wouldn't hurt (almost everything helps) but much
> better results would be gained by:
>
> * Writing tutorials, getting started guides, web pages etc
>
> * An officially sponsored library (well documented and as cross
> platform as possible) - one of two of these started as sourceforge
> projects didn't they? what ever happened? These should be in the main
> Euphoria download or at least highly visible on the main eu web site.
>
> * More and better libraries of all types including doco and examples,
> (cross platform libraries being better)
There's lots of good code in the archives. Finding it is not real easy, and
using it is even less easy. Why? Because there is no accepted standard
for coding or documentation. If there were an officially sponsored library,
and some published standards, people could choose to follow those standards
or ignore them, with the understanding that they wouldn't get into the
official library unless they followed the guidelines.
> and for something completely different ...
>
> * A cross platform GUI library! (I'm sure no more needs to said on
> this topic that has been beaten to death!)
Yes, and no. There are real problems with cross-platform GUI's.
All things considered, a cross-platform GUI is probably way down the list
of important things to do.
Regards,
Irv
31. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:30 pm, J. B. wrote:
> Euphoria is pretty useful as it is - but one review I read of it compared
> it
> to things such as awk and sed. Euphoria _was_ faster than those, but the
> fact
> that Eu was compared to those tools would seem to make a point.
Ha! It did indeed make a point - that the reviewer did not bother to
actually try Euphoria or even read the documentation.
Awk and sed are *better* at doing what they were designed to do than Euphoria
would be. It's just that they were designed for very limited and specialized
tasks. Tasks where execution speed is rarely of any importance.
So the reviewer in his infinite stupidity was being unfair to awk and sed as
well :)
Perhaps the reviewer should have tried writing an accounting program in awk.
Regards,
Irv
32. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 07:38 am, Pete wrote:
>
> What they have done is really great, but it would pale into
> insignificance if Rob bit the bullet and made (one of)
> wxWindows/FOX/Fltk/paragui/V or even Lua(?) part and parcel of the
> official package. Until such time, claiming that Euphoria runs on
> Linux I fear is met with derision. Who, really, would pay for Euphoria
> on a Linux box when they have Python/Ruby/GTK/blah/blah for free?
Um.. Lua is a small programming language not unlike Euphoria. It has
no GUI, but there is a GTK wrapper for it. http://luagnome.free.fr
I have tried to make it work, without success so far. Lua itself is very neat.
> One of Euphoria's touted points is cross platform; but without a cross
> platform GUI, who cares?
I submit that a cross-platform GUI is not an important goal. Here's why:
Windows comes with built in GUI controls.
Linux comes with two sets, GTK and QT.
Any cross-platform library is going to have to make a hard choice:
1. Support only those controls and functions that all GUI's have in common,
thus losing a lot of functionality that makes a given library appealing.
2. Support a third-party GUI library, and live with the problems that
entails, which include: having to download and install a large library, and
staying in sync with the third party library, (as if keeping up with Windows
versions wasn't enough!).
In addition, lots of people use Windows, or GTK, or QT, because they *like*
the look and feel of those GUIs. Third party GUI's usually look and work
differently. Perhaps differently enough to turn off some users.
Regards,
Irv
33. Re: What we really need...
I think it would work just as well to have two different GUI libs that have
the same names for the routines. i.e. setText() setHandler() etc.
Regards,
Robert Szalay
---------------------------------------------
34. Re: What we really need...
Irv wrote on a topic near and dear to my heart:
> Any cross-platform library is going to have to make a hard choice:
>
> 1. Support only those controls and functions that all GUI's have in com=
mon,
> thus losing a lot of functionality that makes a given library appealing=
=2E
Not necessarily. The wxWindows and Zinc cross-platform libraries both sup=
port=20
native controls in they exist for a platform, and fall back to emulated=20
controls if they don't.
> 2. Support a third-party GUI library, and live with the problems that
> entails, which include: having to download and install a large library,=
and
> staying in sync with the third party library, (as if keeping up with
> Windows versions wasn't enough!).
This isn't as hard as it appears. Typically, you can create a file of=20
prototypes, and autogenerate the glue code between your application and t=
he=20
GUI. For example, here's a prototype I use for the wxFindReplaceData clas=
s in=20
wxWindows:
%class wxFindReplaceData, wxObject
%include "wx/fdrepdlg.h"
wxFindReplaceData(wxUint32 flags =3D 0)
const wxString& GetFindString()
const wxString& GetReplaceString()
int GetFlags() const
void SetFlags(wxUint32 flags)
void SetFindString(const wxString& str)
void SetReplaceString(const wxString& str)
Here's an example of a wrapper that it generates:
// wxFindReplaceData(wxUint32 flags =3D 0)
void wxFindReplaceData_new()
{
wxFindReplaceData *returns;
wxUint32 flags =3D (wArgCount > 0 ? (wxUint32)wPopNumber() : 0);
returns =3D new wxFindReplaceData(flags);
wPushPtrHandle( wAddObject( _wxFindReplaceData, (int)returns ) );
}
Obviously, you can set up the wrappers so that they support whatever data=
=20
types and parameter passing you want. Maintaining the library becomes a=20
matter of maintaining the prototypes.
> In addition, lots of people use Windows, or GTK, or QT, because they *l=
ike*
> the look and feel of those GUIs. Third party GUI's usually look and wor=
k
> differently. Perhaps differently enough to turn off some users.
There are toolkits that use native controls. These tend to create larger=20
binaries, but don't have the 'look and feel' problem.=20
-- David Cuny
35. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 01:43 pm, Dave wrote:
>
> Irv wrote on a topic near and dear to my heart:
> > Any cross-platform library is going to have to make a hard choice:
> >
> > 1. Support only those controls and functions that all GUI's have in
> > common, thus losing a lot of functionality that makes a given library
> > appealing.
>
> Not necessarily. The wxWindows and Zinc cross-platform libraries both
> support native controls in they exist for a platform, and fall back to
> emulated controls if they don't.
<snip>
What you say makes good sense. How hard would it be to write a wrapper for
wxWindows/Euphoria?
Have you finished yet? ;)
Irv
36. Re: Re: What we really need...
no, no, not lemmings, then I'd *never* get anything done!!! :)
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: <mistertrik at hotmail.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Re: What we really need...
>
> I'd love to see lemmings...
>
> I think that they're still holding on to the copyright for that one
though.
> The beauty of that game is that it's quite simple to program, it's the
> DESIGN of those levels that made them so addictive. Only JUST enough
> resources to save enough lemmings, especially in the later levels.
>
> =====================================================
> .______<-------------------\__
> / _____<--------------------__|===
> ||_ <-------------------/
> \__| Mr Trick
>
>
> >From: david <mpenzi at bellsouth.net>
> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> >Subject: Re: Re: What we really need...
> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:34:19 -0500
> >
> >
> >Re: Kickstart Euphoria?
> >
> >A good start would be translating abandonware PC games into Euphoria.
> >Then redistribute them as freeware after debugging them. Of course,
> >getting the author/copyright holder's view would be a good idea.
> >Is there any way to make the programs non-system specific, like with
JAVA?
> >(UGH, I hate JAVA!)
> > >
> > > From: "Carl W." <euphoria at cyreksoft.yorks.com>
> > > Date: 2002/11/12 Tue AM 04:49:37 EST
> > > To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> > > Subject: Re: What we really need...
> > >
> > >
> > > Irv wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we need a 'killer app' to make Euphoria more popular?
> > > > I say no.
> > >
> > > Depends what you mean by killer app. Would that be a standalone
> > > super-product or something that allows you to build one a standalone
> > > super-product better and faster than using the base language?
> > >
> > > > No, because most people do not know or care what language their
> > > > applications are written in. Would you stop using your favorite and
> >most
> > > > productive app just because you discovered that it had been written
in
> > > > VisualWhooPas-2.0?
> > > >
> > > > Didn't think so.
> > >
> > > I sometimes make an exception to this if the app seems buggy then I
find
> >it
> > > was written in VB. ;)
> > >
> > > > What DO we need?
> > >
> > > A good swift kick? ... Just kidding.
> > >
> > > > [...] RDS has done a good job of emphasizing Euphoria's strong
points:
> > > > speed and simplicity, but speed and simplicity apparently aren't
> >enough.
> > >
> > > > Euphoria is smaller and faster [...] Yet perl, python, java and ruby
> > > > each have 10, 100, 1000 times as many users as Euphoria. Why?
> > >
> > > To return to the point I was trying to make at the beginning; I can't
> >think
> > > of many killer apps in any of the languages you mention. The thing
that
> > > makes each of them popular is one thing: code base...
> > >
> > > Perl has arguably the largest online repository of user code on the
> >planet.
> > > And the built-in text-processing capabilities are astounding.
> > >
> > > Sun wrote a virtual infinitude of classes for Java - there's so much
> > > available there that it seems you shouldn't need to write any original
> >code
> > > in that language if you can just find the right libraries.
> > >
> > > Python, like Perl, has so much stuff built into the main language from
> >the
> > > outset that people gravitate, convinced their job would be easier.
> > >
> > > Ruby I don't know too much about, but from what I've seen, they
started
> >out
> > > from a small band of fanatics who raved about it everywhere they went
> > > online. Sort of a Ruby missionary project.
> > >
> > > What do I suggest we do?
> > >
> > > We could adopt all strategies - write top notch libraries, then go
forth
> >and
> > > spread the word of the mighty Object Sequence advertising our
libraries
> > > along the way. Convert people from the Heathen Otherlanguages! This
> >ain't
> > > just Snake Oil!
> > >
> > > Ahem.
> > >
> > > Or we could be a bit more subtle.
> > >
> > > Either way, if we want Euphoria to be big (and we should be careful
what
> >we
> > > wish for here) we can't sit around like we are doing. We need to
> >motivate.
> > >
> > > Carl - All hail the Object Sequence. :)
> > >
> > >
> > " '...But this is one thought that has impressed me, Govinda.
Wisdom
> <snip>
>
> >
>
>
>
37. Re: What we really need...
Irv wrote:
> What you say makes good sense. How hard would it be to write a wrapper=
for
> wxWindows/Euphoria?
I've already got the wrapper working. It's not hard to interface to anoth=
er=20
language - the author of wxLua rewrote and used it to interface to Lua.
I've tried interfacing it to Euphoria before, but ran into a number of=20
problems. Part of it has to do with the make process and my stupidity, an=
d=20
part of it has to do with valid C code not compiling as C++ code.
If there is anyone who:
- Owns a copy of the Euphoria source
- Is a competent C/C++ coder
- Is interested in working on this project
they should get a hold of me, and I'll be more than happy to work with th=
em=20
via email to get a version of wxEuphoria up and running.
-- David Cuny
38. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by irv at take.maxleft.com
Nov 13, 2002
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 01:43 pm, you wrote:
>
> Irv wrote on a topic near and dear to my heart:
> > Any cross-platform library is going to have to make a hard choice:
> >
> > 1. Support only those controls and functions that all GUI's have in
> > common, thus losing a lot of functionality that makes a given library
> > appealing.
>
> Not necessarily. The wxWindows and Zinc cross-platform libraries both
> support native controls in they exist for a platform, and fall back to
> emulated controls if they don't.
So how much does Zinc cost? The website wants me to send them my company
mailing address,etc. in order to get information. That doesn't seem like a
good sign.
Irv
39. Re: Re: What we really need...
Irv,
re: standardized documentation for libraries:
I'm writing a "Libraries Manager", which allows the user to create a listing
of libraries they might want to use & shows all routines available in each
library as selected, & short descriptions of each routine & jumps to an html
help doc for each library (& individual routine), & "auto" copy-paste of
the general form of any routine selected.
Each library's html help doc is generated by the Win32Lib "MakeDoc.exw"
(which is what is used to make the help documentation for Win32Lib, directly
*from* the library), which needs unique "slash-tags" included in the
comments of the library to allow the "makeDoc" to create the html, and the
"slash-tags" are also needed to consolidate all the routines & descriptions
from each library for the manager. Ricardo Forno added those "slash-tags"
to his "general functions" library, & I added some to Kat's strok.e so I
could include them in the manager and make the html help for the "general
functions" library.
Adopting the Win32Lib "slash-tags" commenting convention would be a
relatively easy way to generate standardized html documentation for
libraries.
As part of the "Libraries Manager", I'm working to create a utility that
will make it easy to "retro-fit" the Win32Lib "slash-tags" into existing
libraries.
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: <irv at take.maxleft.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: What we really need...
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 09:55 pm, Ray wrote:
>
> david wrote:
> > Re: Kickstart Euphoria?
> >
> > A good start would be translating abandonware PC games into Euphoria.
> > Then redistribute them as freeware after debugging them.
>
> [snip]
>
> As far as I can tell very few Euphoria people are interested
> (or at least active) in the area of game making.
Actually, newcomers to Euphoria often seem most interested in games.
Unfortunately, these are always people who have never tried writing a game.
Those who *have* tried already know that creating a playable game is perhaps
the most difficult programming task imaginable.
This is unfortunate, because many beginning programmers think that
a game would be 'cool'. (Hey, I thought it would be 'cool' to fly an F-16,
but I only got as far as a Cessna 152 Aerobat :) So they get discouraged and
give up.
> This suggestion wouldn't hurt (almost everything helps) but much
> better results would be gained by:
>
> * Writing tutorials, getting started guides, web pages etc
>
> * An officially sponsored library (well documented and as cross
> platform as possible) - one of two of these started as sourceforge
> projects didn't they? what ever happened? These should be in the main
> Euphoria download or at least highly visible on the main eu web site.
>
> * More and better libraries of all types including doco and examples,
> (cross platform libraries being better)
There's lots of good code in the archives. Finding it is not real easy, and
using it is even less easy. Why? Because there is no accepted standard
for coding or documentation. If there were an officially sponsored library,
and some published standards, people could choose to follow those standards
or ignore them, with the understanding that they wouldn't get into the
official library unless they followed the guidelines.
> and for something completely different ...
>
> * A cross platform GUI library! (I'm sure no more needs to said on
> this topic that has been beaten to death!)
Yes, and no. There are real problems with cross-platform GUI's.
All things considered, a cross-platform GUI is probably way down the list
of important things to do.
Regards,
Irv
==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net
40. Re: What we really need...
Irv wrote:
> So how much does Zinc cost? The website wants me to send them my company
> mailing address,etc. in order to get information. That doesn't seem like a
> good sign.
Zinc was bought out a number of years ago by Wind River, mainly for their
"desktop" GUI (emulated under DOS). They didn't seem especially interested in
continuing development on the native GUIs - the Macintosh version disappeared
- but when I last looked, they had released the Windows and Linux versions
for free, and they were continued to be supported by the community.
-- David Cuny
41. Re: What we really need...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:32:07 -0800, Dan Moyer<DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net>
wrote:>As part of the "Libraries Manager", I'm working to create a utility
that>will make it easy to "retro-fit" the Win32Lib "slash-tags" into
existing>libraries.When you do that, can you provide me with a small routine to
stripmost of these from the text for display on-screen, ie something I cancall
just before setText() on each line.Pete
42. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by Dan Moyer <DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net>
Nov 14, 2002
-
Last edited Nov 15, 2002
Pete,
I'm confused.
A routine to strip the Win32Lib slash-tags *off* that I'm trying to *add*?
If you're talking about displaying the source code for a library of
routines, why not just show the original source before I add the slash-tags?
??
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: What we really need...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:32:07 -0800, Dan Moyer
<DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net> wrote:
>As part of the "Libraries Manager", I'm working to create a utility that
>will make it easy to "retro-fit" the Win32Lib "slash-tags" into existing
>libraries.
When you do that, can you provide me with a small routine to strip
most of these from the text for display on-screen, ie something I can
call just before setText() on each line.
Pete
43. Re: What we really need...
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
Nov 15, 2002
-
Last edited Nov 16, 2002
Excuse me gentlemen for breaking into this conversation, but I'm the person
who places the documenation (in tagged form) into Win32lib. Is there a
problem that I can help with?
----------------
cheers,
Derek Parnell
----- Original Message -----
From: <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: What we really need...
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:57:40 -0800, Dan Moyer
<DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net> wrote:
>Pete,
>
>I'm confused.
I am currently displaying details taken directly from win32lib, eg:
>global procedure returnValue( atom returns )
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>/topic Events
>/proc returnValue( value )
>/desc Override default value returned by handler.
> This allows you to override the value an event handler returns to Win32.
> By default, when an event is processed, it goes through these steps:
>
> /li /onEvent: If there is an /onEvent handler for this control, it
> is passed the event.
> /li Event Trap: If there is a specific handler for this event, that
> handler is triggered. For example, /b WM_SETFOCUS triggers
> /onGotFocus, /b WM_SIZE triggers /onResize, etc.
> /li Default Windows Handler: Finally, the default Window handler for
> the control is called. In the case of subclassed /controls,
> /i CallWindowProc calls the normal handler; for /windows,
> /i DefWindowProc is called.
>
> Setting /returnValue causes processing to stop at the step that the
> value was set in, and return that value to Windows.
>
> Example: (not tested yet!)
>
>/code
> -- prevent Button1 from seeing any space bar keys
> procedure Button1_KeyDown( /int keycode, /int shift )
> if keycode = VK_SPACE then
> -- set return value
> /returnValue( True )
> end if
> end procedure
> /onKeyDown[ Button1 ] = routine_id("Button1_KeyDown")
>/endcode
As you can see, things could be improved for on-screen display.
I don't think it is terribly difficult to strip /i /b /code /endcode
/li /n /topic /proc /desc and whatever else I might have missed to
make the text a bit more legible when displayed in a window.
>
>A routine to strip the Win32Lib slash-tags *off* that I'm trying to *add*?
>If you're talking about displaying the source code for a library of
>routines,
> why not just show the original source before I add the slash-tags?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My turn to be confused. You mean you are *NOT* saving the slash-tags
you are adding in the source file?
Pete
>
>??
>Dan
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:19 AM
>Subject: Re: What we really need...
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:32:07 -0800, Dan Moyer
><DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>As part of the "Libraries Manager", I'm working to create a utility that
>>will make it easy to "retro-fit" the Win32Lib "slash-tags" into existing
>>libraries.
>
>When you do that, can you provide me with a small routine to strip
>most of these from the text for display on-screen, ie something I can
>call just before setText() on each line.
>
>Pete
>
>
>========================
44. Re: What we really need...
