1. Muhahahaha!
You know, comedy is an essential part of life.
And I can't get enough of it.
People often seek out comedy in sources such as television
or the theather, but I get my comedy... from reading the Euphoria mailing list!
Haha! What a bunch of bullshit this is, you know?
I've always being interested in programming languages,
and one day I come accross Euphoria.
Before this I was a C, C++ and VB coder for Yahoo!, untill I quit for personal
reasons.
Now, what happens?
One day I meet Euphoria, and I read things such as "This language is fast, safe
and sexy" and "C/C++ are hard and bad, and Euphoria is easy and good, plus it
beats some C compilers in speed". Offcourse I go "Hey! This might be a cool fast
and easy language!" and I download it.
I read some texts on the language and start coding in it to test it's speed....
WAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
You people make me sick!
You have eighter all being brainwashed into thinking "Euphoria is fast", or you
are just some pathetic loser nerd kids who never even CODED in any other
language, thus thinking Euphoria is fast because RDS says so without comparing it
to other languages.
Euphoria is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!
It's being compared to interpretters written in the 70's, and then it draws the
conclusion that it's faster! What a bunch of bullshit! Offcourse a 32-Bit
Optimised interpretter is going to be faster than a 16-Bit non-Optimised
interpretter like QBASIC. Only an asshole or a fool compares both with eachother!
Then the Euphoria documentation says something like "We never met an
interpretter that was faster than Euphoria" so all those gullible little kids are
going to believe it.
But read what it says! THEY never met a faster one, and THEY depend on
Euphoria's speed to cash in so they aren't going to tell you they only saw QBASIC
in their entire lives, or saw the truth wich is that there are interpretters wich
are FASTER than Euphoria out there.
All you guys are thinking "but what about Euphoria being 8x faster than JAVA?".
Yeah right, READ WHAT IT SAYS!
It don't say RDS wrote a benchmark program in Euphoria *and* JAVA and the
results showed Euphoria was 8x faster, it says that THE TIME IT TAKES TO READ IN
AND START EXECUTION ON A PROGRAM IS 8X FASTER IN EUPHORIA COMPARED TO JAVA!!!!
Understand? It's just saying that Eu's parser is 8x faster than JAVA's, not that
JAVA programs run slower than Euphoria programs. And I don't blaim JAVA for being
slower in parsing, since JAVA is a more complex language to parse than this "toy"
piece of shit language.
Euphoria is a joke.
It's being around for 7 years and NOT EVEN ONE PERSON was able to write a
commercial application in it.
Why is this?
Because Euphoria is only a toy language, it is not powerfull or feasible enough
to run a large complex commercial application in the year 2000.
The language is beaten to shit for writing a commercial program in it.
Euphoria doesn't INCREASE productivity, it DECREASES it!
You wanna write for the Mac in Euphoria? Can't do that!
For an SGI workstation?
Can't do that!
For the Playstation?
Can't do that!
For the Playstation II, Nintendo 64, Gameboy, Saturn, Dreamcast, Star Cube, NES,
SNES, Genesis, X-BOX?
Can't do that!
But using ANSI C you *can*! For *all* of these platforms!
This is what they don't tell you, and this is why Euphoria can NEVER even
remotely compete with even the BASIC programming language, simply because
Euphoria is a restricting, 3-platform, closed-source propriatary programming toy.
It's not even a language because so-called "RDS" want's to hug it and squeeze it
and hope that maybe in another 7 years it will start to render, instead of
throwing out the source like Python and let users implement the crappy shit
language where they want.
This is why languages like Python are so famous despite their bad performance:
They are public property!
Now, RDS is doing bad things with Euphoria in the following fields;
1. They keep it a property and don't make it opensource out of fear of someone
"stealing their ideas" (paranoia anyone?)
2. Euphoria users can't produce .dlls, .ocxs or shared libraries, nor object
files, and restrict Euphoria to producing EXEs and EXEs alone.
3. They built-in garbage collection and other gimmick shit wich can't be turned
off for extra speed (because they don't want you to find out that Euphoria is
slow because of sloppy design instead of the run-time gimmicks they claim to have
built in)
4. They support only 3 platforms, and that truly is *NOT* going to cut it. To
beat C or C++, compiled or interpretted, you will have to support EVERY platform
C/C++ supports, or don't even start comparing Euphoria to it. Plus, 2 of the
platforms they support they only support half, because you can't produce shared
libary systems like DLLs and such wich LINUX and Win32 support, and wich the
C/C++ compilers for those platforms DO support.
5. They keep selling a damned Interpretter while that truly is NOT what any
serious programmer wants! A good commercial compiler is sooooo much faster for
any language than a commercial interpretter for that language.
6. They keep lying about the product. Euphoria is NOT fast, NOT powerfull and
NOT F R E E!! This turns down a hell of a lot of serious developers who try out
the language and see that it says "register here to get the full product" after
reading "Euphoria is a FREE program". What part of "This is only a demo and you
have to pay to get the full product" don't you people understand? If Euphoria is
"free" because they give out a lacking small demo of the full product, then by
that same analogy all those Shareware programs on Tucows and those Shareware
games (wich is EVERY game now released for the PC) are "free" aswell? Euphoria is
SHAREWARE *not* FREEWARE! DJGPP is FREEWARE! LCC is FREEWARE! Euphoria is
SHAREWARE! Why can't you people understand this?
Now at first I didn't want to come crashing down here with the truth about
Euphoria, because I saw they finally got it straight and started work on a
Compiler.
But then the following happened:
- I realised RDS was lying again when using the term COMPILER while they were
actually working on A TRANSLATOR.
- I saw that only 3 platforms were going to be supported, while with correct
coding you can produce ANSI C source from a Euphoria translator and ANSI C source
alone, thus making Euphoria programs compilable on a lot of other platforms with
just a bit of work from RDS, but in order to do this all the translator has to
produce for you to compile would be ANSI C-Source with #ifdef sections for each
platform, wich would mean RDS would have to giveout the ENTIRE source to the
Euphoria system, wich because they are paranoid of anyone "stealing their ideas"
they can't do, and settled with producing pre-compiled library files wich have to
be compiled at RDS for only a given amount of compilers and platforms, wich are
later linked by you to produce an executable.
- The translator is STILL SLOW!!!! Speedups of 2x or 5x are *NOTHING*!
Interpretted Euphoria benchmarks run 100s of times SLOWER THAN OPTIMISED COMPILED
C! You are only making it a tiny bit faster, wich is obsolete! I benchmarked
Euphoria against compiled C (VC++ 6.0) and it's even 300 times slower at some
points! THREE HUNDRED!!! Did anyone actually "try" and benchmark Euphoria against
top-quality products such as VC++?? You should, because you will freak out! I saw
a kid coming in here with his Euphoria Vs. VC++ benchmark showing Euphoria was
250 times slower than VC++ 5.0, wich was 100% correct and the absolute truth, and
RDS tries to muffle his results away with some fake talk like "oh but the C
compilers often strip out code and those 10 benchmarks weren't actually
running.." DUH? That kid believed it and apologised! Offcourse a C compiler
strips out some code wich is NEVER CALLED, but not critical code wich is called
thousands of times like that! Try it for yourself, I will give you all the money
on my bank account if Euphoria is not atleast 200 times slower in total than VC++
6.0.
People, how can you live with yourself believing all t hese lies?
Euphoria is a big piece of lying flaming junk! Buy the latest JAVA interpretter
and see it run dozens of times faster than Euphoria, plus create your programs,
web pages, applets, etc. with it, then write some DOS programs using the (truly)
FREE DJGPP JAVA to C translator, etc...
Why is it that after all these years, there are no commercial Euphoria
applications? How come all there is of Euphoria are some slow graphics demos and
even slower PONG and Space Invaders clones? How come there ins't a human being
alive that can write a 3D engine in Euphoria, that doesn't look like a slow
version of a 286 engine from decades ago running slow even on today's Pentiums?
Even 3D graphics routines written in MACHINE CODE incorporated into Euphoria
programs, run SLOW AS HELL just because of the fact that Euphoria has to call
those routines, wich it does ultra-slow!
Kids, if you want a future as a proffesional computer programmer, throw away
Euphoria because it serves you no good and hides you away from reality, making
you believe lies, and start learning C++ or even Visual Basic or Delphi!
And by the way, Visual Basic is MUCH easier to use than Euphoria!
Because in Euphoria you have to write THOUSANDS of lines of code just to create
a small Hello World Windows app, and in VB you write 0 lines for the same
purpose! Win32lib does not count because it is not part of the language, and even
so still incorporates thousands of Euphoria lines to create a GUI interface,
proving me correct anyways.
Drake ICE
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
2. Re: Muhahahaha!
Hmmm.... somebody needs a hug...
3. Re: Muhahahaha!
- Posted by Alex Ford <FFUltimateMaster at CS.COM>
Aug 10, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 11, 2000
hrm... well... one thing, your right... that is funny... It shows your
Incompotence... Don't you think we know that its shareware? Duh! That email
just shows what a retard you are, euphoria can develop commercial games, and
there are a few [user commercial] one is Mage Fire, a nice RPG. If you want a
Euphoria Engine then take alook at Morfit for Euphoria.
nough said, drop your attitude and maybe you'll get somewhere in life, loser!
PS: I like my toys!
4. Re: Muhahahaha!
- Posted by Alex Ford <FFUltimateMaster at CS.COM>
Aug 10, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 11, 2000
heh... oh yea... and another thing, Win32lib is great, and is made part of
the language as an out side source, and with it.. A simple 7-10 lines can
make a window with a little more then just hello world...
5. Re: Muhahahaha!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:39:25 EDT Alex Ford <FFUltimateMaster at CS.COM> wrote:
>heh... oh yea... and another thing, Win32lib is great, and is made part of
>the language as an out side source, and with it.. A simple 7-10 lines can
>make a window with a little more then just hello world...
>
It's not part of the language, and I can display the entire Bible on an 80-layer
window in a VB application without writing even half a line of code.
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
6. Re: Muhahahaha!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:37:33 EDT Alex Ford <FFUltimateMaster at CS.COM> wrote:
>hrm... well... one thing, your right... that is funny... It shows your
>Incompotence...
>Don't you think we know that its shareware? Duh!
Tell that person that recently complained about Euphoria's claim of being
freeware while it's shareware on this mailing list that he is "Incompetent"
aswell!
>That email
>just shows what a retard you are, euphoria can develop commercial games, and
>there are a few [user commercial] one is Mage Fire, a nice RPG.
Why contradict yourself? Mage Fire does not show Euphoria can develop commercial
games, it shows that Morfit, a C/C++ and ASM libary, can develop "games", wich
are not even commercial in Mage Fire's sense because when I say "commercial" I
truly do mean commercial, as in "available in a store near you", or atleast a
game that stands a chance in the current market if it were ever released, plus,
Mage Fire took 45 minutes of my time while I tried to load it up and all I could
do was stare at the loading screen, I wounder how complex and fast the actual
game was then.
I bet it is an instant Best Seller and UT, Quake III, Tribes II, Zelda 64 and
Final Fantasy 7 can't compete with it!
>If you want a
>Euphoria Engine then take alook at Morfit for Euphoria.
Again, Morfit is *not* a "Euphoria Engine". Morfit is a C/C++ ASM program
compiled with a C/C++ compiler and not with Euphoria! The only thing wich belongs
to Euphoria in Morfit is that Euphoria .ew wrapper wich makes it so slow.
>nough said, drop your attitude and maybe you'll get somewhere in life, loser!
I am somewhere inlife, and yes it's definitely "nuff said", because all you just
said did not make any sense and I do not wich to hear any more of your random
attempts to come off right while you are wrong. Morfit being a Euphoria engine??
Mage Fire being an example of a Euphoria commercial game??
Yeah right!
You are going to have to do better than that to prove me wrong, I'm not some
gullible little kid that believes things without questioning them, a trend wich
Euphorians seem to follow.
>PS: I like my toys!
>
So do I.
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
7. Re: Muhahahaha!
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
Aug 10, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 11, 2000
Drake ICE writes:
> I will give you all the money on my bank account if Euphoria is not
> at least 200 times slower in total than VC++ 6.0.
Please make check payable to:
Rapid Deployment Software
130 Holm Crescent
Thornhill, Ontario
L3T 5J3
CANADA
> I saw a kid coming in here with his Euphoria Vs. VC++
> benchmark showing Euphoria was 250 times slower
> than VC++ 5.0, wich was 100% correct and the absolute truth,
> and RDS tries to muffle his results away with some fake talk
> like "oh but the C compilers often strip out code and those 10
> benchmarks weren't actually running.." DUH? That kid believed it
> and apologised! Offcourse a C compiler strips out some code
> wich is NEVER CALLED, but not critical code wich is called
> thousands of times like that!
The code was supposed to be executed thousands of times,
but since it didn't calculate anything useful, the C compiler
optimized it away *completely*. Tiny, artificial benchmarks
like this are not very useful. I could write a tiny benchmark
that would show interpreted Euphoria to be 250x faster
than compiled C. (strlen() in C vs length() in
Euphoria.)
> It's being compared to interpretters written in the 70's,
> and then it draws the conclusion that it's faster!
When was Perl written?
When was Python written?
When was Java written?
> Then the Euphoria documentation says something like
> "We never met an interpretter that was faster than Euphoria"
We haven't. Have you?
> All you guys are thinking "but what about Euphoria being
> 8x faster than JAVA?". Yeah right, READ WHAT IT SAYS!
> It don't say RDS wrote a benchmark program in Euphoria
> *and* JAVA and the results showed Euphoria was 8x faster,
> it says that THE TIME IT TAKES TO READ IN AND START
> EXECUTION ON A PROGRAM IS 8X FASTER IN
> EUPHORIA COMPARED TO JAVA!!!!
> Understand? It's just saying that Eu's parser is 8x faster
> than JAVA's, not that JAVA programs run slower
> than Euphoria programs.
Wrong. We translated sieve.ex to Java and ran it with
the latest Java interpreter that existed at that time.
We did *not* include the fact that Euphoria starts up in
a tiny fraction of a second, whereas Java takes longer.
We only timed the loops. Since then Java *compilers*
have become available. They are faster than the original
Java interpreter (but with the Translator,
Euphoria is now much faster on sieve, shell
and others too).
> 2. Euphoria users can't produce .dlls, .ocxs or shared libraries,
> nor object files, and restrict Euphoria to producing EXEs and
> EXEs alone.
static and shared libraries and object files
will be possible soon using the Euphoria to C Translator.
> 4. They support only 3 platforms, and that truly is *NOT*
> going to cut it.
We intend to support more platforms, but we've
already covered what 90% of PC programmers are using.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
8. Re: Muhahahaha!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Drake ICE gave his palm a rest and wrote:
snippity snip
> And by the way, Visual Basic is MUCH easier to use than Euphoria!
> Because in Euphoria you have to write THOUSANDS of lines of code just to
> create a small Hello World Windows app, and in VB you write 0 lines for the same
> purpose! Win32lib does not count because it is not part of the language, and even
> so still incorporates thousands of Euphoria lines to create a GUI interface,
> proving me correct anyways.
Sort of like you took hundreds of lines just to prove you are clueless?
Irv
9. Re: Muhahahaha!
>> I will give you all the money on my bank account if Euphoria is not
>> at least 200 times slower in total than VC++ 6.0.
>
>Please make check payable to:
> Rapid Deployment Software
> 130 Holm Crescent
> Thornhill, Ontario
> L3T 5J3
> CANADA
LOL! Hold your horses, I need proof first, and you can't deliver it.
>> I saw a kid coming in here with his Euphoria Vs. VC++
>> benchmark showing Euphoria was 250 times slower
>> than VC++ 5.0, wich was 100% correct and the absolute truth,
>> and RDS tries to muffle his results away with some fake talk
>> like "oh but the C compilers often strip out code and those 10
>> benchmarks weren't actually running.." DUH? That kid believed it
>> and apologised! Offcourse a C compiler strips out some code
>> wich is NEVER CALLED, but not critical code wich is called
>> thousands of times like that!
>
>The code was supposed to be executed thousands of times,
>but since it didn't calculate anything useful, the C compiler
>optimized it away *completely*. Tiny, artificial benchmarks
>like this are not very useful. I could write a tiny benchmark
>that would show interpreted Euphoria to be 250x faster
>than compiled C. (strlen() in C vs length() in
>Euphoria.)
That's because strlen() runs through the array of chars each time it's called,
and length() simply retrieves an allready calculated length wich is stored along
with the sequence. And about that benchmark. No. I wrote my own benchmarks, and
considered the fact that the C compiler can cut away code if it does nothing
usefull, so I simply compiled them without any optimisations and checked the
produced assembly code to make sure nothing was being cut away, and Euphoria is
still hundreds of times slower.
Don't take my word for it, though, if you truly do not know this, and do your
own checks.
>> It's being compared to interpretters written in the 70's,
>> and then it draws the conclusion that it's faster!
>
>When was Perl written?
>When was Python written?
>When was Java written?
Where are Perl vs Euphoria benchmarks in the package?
Where are Python vs Euphoria benchmarks in the package?
Where are Java vs Euphoria benchmarks in the package?
Clearly you only distributed that wich proved Euphoria to be fast.
>> Then the Euphoria documentation says something like
>> "We never met an interpretter that was faster than Euphoria"
>
>We haven't. Have you?
Yes. Many JAVA byte-code interpretters are faster than Euphoria in many aspects.
And many Perl and Python iterpretter are faster than Euphoria aswell.
>> All you guys are thinking "but what about Euphoria being
>> 8x faster than JAVA?". Yeah right, READ WHAT IT SAYS!
>> It don't say RDS wrote a benchmark program in Euphoria
>> *and* JAVA and the results showed Euphoria was 8x faster,
>> it says that THE TIME IT TAKES TO READ IN AND START
>> EXECUTION ON A PROGRAM IS 8X FASTER IN
>> EUPHORIA COMPARED TO JAVA!!!!
>> Understand? It's just saying that Eu's parser is 8x faster
>> than JAVA's, not that JAVA programs run slower
>> than Euphoria programs.
>
>Wrong. We translated sieve.ex to Java and ran it with
>the latest Java interpreter that existed at that time.
>We did *not* include the fact that Euphoria starts up in
>a tiny fraction of a second, whereas Java takes longer.
>We only timed the loops. Since then Java *compilers*
>have become available. They are faster than the original
>Java interpreter (but with the Translator,
>Euphoria is now much faster on sieve, shell
>and others too).
First, that message onyour site does give the impression that only the time
taken to execute the programs was measured. Second, many ofthose Java "compilers"
are actually only compiling to byte-code form, and still interpret the source at
run-time. Infact, and JIT compiler is actually an interpretter, because an
interpretter is a compiler that compiles programs whenever they need to be ran,
and not once and for all. So, you do know Java interpretters can be faster than
Euphoria? So you admit to have met faster interpretter than Euphoria? And third,
I sure hope that the translator will be faster than any intepretter out there,
becuause if it is not, then you did not take full advantage of the C programming
language.
>> 2. Euphoria users can't produce .dlls, .ocxs or shared libraries,
>> nor object files, and restrict Euphoria to producing EXEs and
>> EXEs alone.
>
>static and shared libraries and object files
>will be possible soon using the Euphoria to C Translator.
This actually sounds good...
But with C I can do this allready, and atleast I'll have programs out there that
can actually call the routines I store in my DLL or shared library, and don't
have to go through parameter tranformation overhead, plus what good is writing
shared libraries if you can't share anything but those routines that don't accept
arrays, since Euphoria can't understand C arrays and convert them to sequences
(why I don't know...).
>> 4. They support only 3 platforms, and that truly is *NOT*
>> going to cut it.
>
>We intend to support more platforms, but we've
>already covered what 90% of PC programmers are using.
Actually, what platform the PC programmers are using does not matter that much.
Because a lot of them are writing programs on the PC for other platforms. I never
saw a MIPS programmer code on his Playstation using his Joystick.
If you truly want to support other platforms, I suggest supporting something
like the MIPS architecture or the RISC architecture instead of coming up with a
Euphoria For BeOS or something. Support MIPS and you support various gaming
consoles and workstations, etc. while supporting yet another PC-based OS like
BeOS you do not support anything attractive.
>Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
Now I do have respect for you because you did lower yourself to my standards --
flaming, yet attempted to solve this through adult discussion.
Admitted, I did come down on you hard, but as it stands, you have not proven
that Euphoria lives up to your claims.
Infact, I *can* prove *my* claims.
Because your web browser probably contains a Java interpretter wich is faster
than Euphoria right now, unless you have an old web browser.
Unless a Euphoria loop runs exactly as fast as a compiled C loop, there realy
won't be a market for Euphoria. Time has proven this, time has proven that
Euphoria needs change. And the change you attempt to give it, a Translator, won't
work out since you will use Goto's instead of native flow control, meaning
Euphoria will still be the same Euphoria, only with the title of being compiled,
but still slower than what serious programmers can cope with.
A last tip from me: "while 1 do" becomes while(1) in C! "procedure test()"
becomes void test(), and test() becomes test();! Unless so, I see no reason to
believe the translator will be any better than the interpretter.
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
10. Re: Muhahahaha!
>It's not part of the language, and I can display the entire Bible on an
80-layer window in a VB application without >writing even half a line of
code.
It doesn't *have* to be part of the language. In fact, its just a
precompiled library in most languages.
Plus, the lines of code you write, should have something to do, with the
amount of code you incorporate.
VB is not about programming, its mostly about combining pieces already
written for you.
In euphoria you can use any editor cut & paste an 8 line program, to do the
same as the bucnh of clicks do with VB, what is the difference ?
Ralf N.
11. Re: Muhahahaha!
You don't like 'em enough. [toys] And believe me, using something like
'Morfit for euphoria' is just like using another engine that someone else
coded in C and not the actual person who is making the program. Oh yea, I
guess you must like my 'random attempts' huh?
And anyway, Euphoria is a Hobby, not something you take seriously to the max!
And you know what? I'd rather spend 30 dollars on my hobby, than spend 400+
dollars on something that would take me 2-4 years to get the hang of. I just
wouldn't spend that much money on some VB stuff [plus i want my PS2]
~later~
PS: I'll learn C when i want to.
12. Re: Muhahahaha!
- Posted by mic _ <stabmaster_ at HOTMAIL.COM>
Aug 11, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 12, 2000
>..C is the greatest.. blah, blah blah...
Well.. actually, there are no C compilers available for PSX2 yet. Ridge
Racer and Tekken Tag Tournament both had to be coded in asm..
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
13. Re: Muhahahaha!
Don't hold back, Drake. Tell us what you really think :)
David Gay
