1. ex bloatware?
To Rob Craig.
bloatware: being big for containing unnecessary things
ex.exe (2.0) is 176,417 bytes.
Even after renaming ED.BAT and ED.EX, I still get a "with trace trace(1)"
program traced with the similar editor interface.
BUT when bound, the program's size becomes (size of ex.exe WITH ALL TRACING
CAPABILITY) + (5 bytes identification) + (size of shrouded file), and trace
no longer works.
I don't know if profile works the same.
Why not also include a SMALLER public domain ex.* that does not support
debugging at all (not even 300 lines), that ignores with trace, and that
can be bound to have a smaller executable?
Why not use this space (heh -- it even includes syntax highlighting with
PRESET colors, which I hate... especially the string color green-on-white
is unreadable) for something more useful like built-in delete [#41],
rename/move [#56], mkdir [#39], rmdir [#3A], chdir [#3B], setfattr [#4301],
setftime [#5701], disksize/diskfree [#36], lock/unlock [#5C],
isdriveremoveable[#4408? not documented in DOSREF34.EXE 
], exec without
command.com [#4B], LFN functions [#71??], ...
ps. Again, I would like a statement counter, this shouldn't be too hard
because it already works to disable the "core dump" 
pps When'll Linux version be ready? Is a BSD/OS version planned? I don't
mind compiling 
2. ex bloatware?
Firefight alert!
Andy,
>>>>>
bloatware: being big for containing unnecessary things
<<<<<
I see your mailer is Pine. What browser do you use? At least you may be=
consistent, since I consider Netscape and IE are major bloatware. If you=
use one of them, (which you may not), write to them first before you
complain about a 180k program. That is small.
Besides, Euphoria is stable and fast, something I can't say for all Win95=
apps.
>>>>>
ex.exe (2.0) is 176,417 bytes.
<<<<<
How big is your mailer? 180k is a luxury these days.
>>>>>
Why not also include a SMALLER public domain ex.* that does not support
debugging at all (not even 300 lines), that ignores with trace, and that
can be bound to have a smaller executable?
<<<<<
So, how would beginners have a clue as to what's wrong with their program=
s?
Consider others before you press the send button. 170k, like I said, is=
a
luxorious size, especially for a programming language. Qbasic is 194,3xx=
bytes, not including the help file. What about C, with its interpreter,
compiler, and linker?
>>>>>
Why not use this space (heh -- it even includes syntax highlighting with
PRESET colors, which I hate...
<<<<<
I don't know what you mean by PRESET. Even I think (now) that these colo=
rs
are easy to change. If you wish, go into the ed.ex file and change the
color constants to your satisfaction. They have to come with *some* colo=
r
already set, right? How else will one get started?
If you don't like the editor, there are two (at least two) other
alternatives on the website.
>>>>>
especially the string color green-on-white
is unreadable) for something more useful like built-in delete [#41],
rename/move [#56], mkdir [#39], rmdir [#3A], chdir [#3B], setfattr [#4301=
],
setftime [#5701], disksize/diskfree [#36], lock/unlock [#5C],
isdriveremoveable[#4408? not documented in DOSREF34.EXE ], exec withou=
t
command.com [#4B], LFN functions [#71??], ...
<<<<<
I am not sure what you mean here. If I midunderstand, I'm sorry. But y=
ou
seem to be suggesting that these DOS functions/commands go into the
Euphoria editor. What word processor/editor has these DOS command
functions? The only thing I could ask for was a shell to DOS command.
>>>>>
ps. Again, I would like a statement counter, this shouldn't be too hard
because it already works to disable the "core dump"
<<<<<
This is true. It would be nice.
--Alan
=
3. Re: ex bloatware?
Alan Tu wrote:
> Firefight alert!
>
> Andy,
>
> >>>>>
> bloatware: being big for containing unnecessary things
> <<<<<
>
> I see your mailer is Pine. What browser do you use? At least you may be=
> consistent, since I consider Netscape and IE are major bloatware. If you=
> use one of them, (which you may not), write to them first before you
> complain about a 180k program. That is small.
>
> Besides, Euphoria is stable and fast, something I can't say for all Win95=
> apps.
I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks a usable programming language is
"bloated"at 180k clearly hasn't bought any commercial software in a *long*
time.
Irv
>
>
4. Re: ex bloatware?
>What word processor/editor has these DOS command
>functions? The only thing I could ask for was a shell to DOS command.
I beleive that ed.ex has a shell to dos command built into it, at least it
will run dos commands and then come back to the editor.
I beleive that what he is trying to say is that for a distributable program,
it may not be necessary for some of the debugging stuff to be in the
interpreter. I beleive that is probably not true. The debugging stuff is
probably just a dump of what is already being done by the interpreter.
Luckily Rob is very sure of what he is doing with Euphoria, he seems to
let all of these requests to change stuff flow right over his head, while
taking the good requests and considering them.
Monty
5. Re: ex bloatware?
-----Original Message-----
De: Andy Kurnia <akur at DELOS.COM>
Para: EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu
<EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu>
Fecha: domingo 21 de junio de 1998 7:06
Asunto: ex bloatware?
>ex.exe (2.0) is 176,417 bytes.
How many copies of ex.exe an all the include files can you put in a single
3.5" floppy? I don't think I need a ZIP or SeaQuest to transport these ;)
>Why not use this space (heh -- it even includes syntax highlighting with
>PRESET colors, which I hate... especially the string color green-on-white
>is unreadable) for something more useful like built-in delete [#41],
>rename/move [#56], mkdir [#39], rmdir [#3A], chdir [#3B], setfattr [#4301],
>setftime [#5701], disksize/diskfree [#36], lock/unlock [#5C],
>isdriveremoveable[#4408? not documented in DOSREF34.EXE ], exec without
>command.com [#4B], LFN functions [#71??], ...
Look at the Recent users contributions page... there's a file a posted
(dos.e) that gives much of functionality you're asking. You can also look
for Jacques Deschnes DOSWRAP.E.
Regards,
Daniel Berstein
daber at pair.com
6. Re: ex bloatware?
Andy Kurnia requests a bunch of things:
I'm paraphrasing a bit ...
> make a stripped down ex.exe for binding.
I once estimated I might save 20K or so by eliminating
the debug/trace code in bound executables. I don't think
it's worth it. It makes life more complicated for me and
users. It means extra testing, extra possibilities of bugs
etc. It would mean a larger EUPHOR20.ZIP file. I'd have
to build and test at least 6
different versions of Euphoria for each release:
ex PD, ex Complete, ex Stripped Down, plus 3 more
for Windows, and 3 more for any new platform. No thanks.
> trace/profile no longer work when bound/shrouded
That's right. It's there for added security of shrouded/scrambled
programs, so you can't snoop through someone's code as easily.
> && ||
I've written a lot of code in C, and I like the
"short-circuit" evaluation of AND/OR conditions.
For this reason I recently spent a lot of time
investigating how to add this to Euphoria.
My conclusion:
* it's rather difficult to add to the current Euphoria parser
* if I change AND and OR to operate in the short-circuit
manner, existing programs will break. I had no trouble
finding at least 3 programs on the Euphoria Web site
that would break if short-circuit were used (since function
calls might be skipped).
* I don't really want to introduce 2 new keywords that
have almost the same meaning as AND and OR.
This is supposed to be a simple language.
* Euphoria is not like C. Euphoria has boolean expressions
where the result can be an atom *or a sequence*, and you
can't tell which unless you execute the second part of the
condition. You could get around this by defining "false" to
be atom 0 as it is now, or a *sequence* where every element
is false. Then:
0 and expression
would always be "false" and
1 or expression
would always be "true", regardless of what
expression evaluates to (atom or sequence).
But what about:
x = 1 or expression
You'd have to evaluate it fully. The evaluation of boolean
expressions would have to depend on the context (condition vs.
assignment or other expression.). That makes me
uncomfortable.
Bottom line: I'm not planning to proceed with this.
> add various functions to ex.exe
For a function to be added to ex.exe, it should be used
a lot, or be critical to performance. It's extremely unlikely
that checking the size of a file fits either category.
Reading N bytes from a file, I considered at one time,
but I haven't done it, because I think people more often
want to read up to some delimitter, rather than simply
a number of bytes. I've tried to make getc() as fast as
possible. I've heard vague statements that Euphoria's
file I/O is not very fast, but I've never been presented with any
concrete measurements, time profiles, or examples of
code where I/O is a major bottleneck.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
