1. Re: C compiler & euphoria editor(s)
Ken Rhodes writes:
> For several years now I have heard many expert and
> novice programmers complain about ed.ex. And the lesson
> I have learned is that we are creatures of habit.
> Nearly everyone who was suckled on the DOS / QBasic editor
> much prefers David Cuny's ee.ex... or Carl White's
> derivation thereof.
I would encourage everyone to try ee (David's original
or Carl's). It has a much nicer user interface than ed.
I intend to keep improving ed, but it has low priority
compared to the Euphoria core language.
I never really used QBasic, and I was surprised
to find that many QBasic users consider an editor to be
an integral part of a programming language. From my
background, mainly C, an editor is a completely separate
tool, and everyone uses the editor of their choice, without
regard to the language they are programming in.
ed started out as just another, rather trivial, demo program, just
to show people that an editor might be written in Euphoria.
Somehow I started using it, and adding features to it, until it
was complete enough to replace the micro-emacs
editor I'd been using.
> BOTTOM LINE
> Rob.. please release the DOS C code to ed.ex, etc.
> and the LINUX code as well for that matter. I for one
> will be quite willing to test it for you and give u
> bug reports or whatever.
Thanks, but I'm making very good progress right now,
and I don't think it will help to bring in alpha testers yet.
I have hundreds of programs to use as testing fodder.
> hmmmmmmm The speed of the buckect sort is utterly
> amazingin in interpeted Euphoria -- does it benefit from
> the C doe com;pile?
allsorts.ex is now working when compiled to C,
and the performance is good. I can't do meaningful
performance comparisons until I spend a few hours
optimizing the generated C code.
There's a lot of easy stuff that I can do that will make a
big difference, but I want to get the
remaining bugs out before I make it faster.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
