1. Why Compilers are Doomed
I don't really want to get involved in this but I thought some of you may be
interested in this article:
http://www.equi4.com/jcw/wiki.cgi/56.html
Kind Regards,
Aidan
2. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
>I don't really want to get involved in this but I thought some of you may
>be
>interested in this article:
>http://www.equi4.com/jcw/wiki.cgi/56.html
>
>Kind Regards,
>Aidan
Holy shit!
This is truly, truly, truly, the biggest bullshit I have ever seen!
I'm a man that can come up with bullshit the size of America, but this beats
the hell out of me!
I'm not even going to start explaining why this script-kid opensource lover
is wrong, any human with a brain larger than a grain of salt can
see exactly why.
Mike The Spike
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
3. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
My personal feeling is that there will continue to be a blend of both
scripting and compilation for the next decade or so. Look at java - at the
amount of javascript and java out there: jit, jsp, server-side script,
servlets, beans... Not to mention VBA, VBS, ASP... The future is being
carved out on the web, and whatever will facilitate web progress is where
we'll see the breakthroughs.
- John Coonrod
===== Original Message from Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU> at 8/19/00 4:08 am
>I don't really want to get involved in this but I thought some of you may be
>interested in this article:
>http://www.equi4.com/jcw/wiki.cgi/56.html
>
>Kind Regards,
>Aidan
4. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:08:31 +1000, Aidan Bindoff <abindoff at ONE.NET.AU>
wrote:
>I don't really want to get involved in this but I thought some of you may
be
>interested in this article:
>http://www.equi4.com/jcw/wiki.cgi/56.html
>
>Kind Regards,
>Aidan
What this guy doesn't mention is that the scripting engines
are written using compilers.
5. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
It's all bunk that's only going to add to the explosion of bloat in
software. The problem of bloatware doesn't entirely extend from the current
crop of languages. I can remeber a time when C/C++ code was small and
efficient, though never as much as pure assembly. Of course, when time was
crucial, innermost loops could always be profiled and optimised with
assembly if needed. Visual C/C++ 6 provides some of the most efficient C
code there is... so then why does bloatware exist?
BAD PROGRAMMERS using obfuscated tools to build programs instead of
write programs. Most "programmers" and I use the term loosely, rarely
program, they splice together visual components, and the tool builds 90% of
the code. The remainder is pure math and algorithms to do dedicated tasks
for which there is no "plug in". But since that 10% of the time, they do
have to program, a lot of people are still intimidated by it, and never get
into the field.
What will "scripting" mean for computers. I means we can get even more
no-talent, incompetent pseudo-programmers in the industry. Now, the other
10% of the code that you had to write before can be done in a very very high
level language, perhaps even "english" sentences which work to only describe
the function, and the interpreter/compiler has to decipher the intent. I can
see a future where even simple applications take hundreds of megabytes,
where running "calculator" will start swapping to VM on a 128MB machine. I
can see a future where we look at MB's of RAM like we looked a "K" only ten
years ago... Computers with 4GB of RAM may become a norm soon, and
"programmers" will only be happier making even sloppier code to fill the
space.
What we need is another big disaster to happen... perhaps it's found
that the heat generated by chips causes a miniscule amount of carcenogens to
enter you lungs (from the exaughst fan in the computer)... or maybe have
some more earthquakes bring down a few more RAM-chip factories... hmm, maybe
we need an group of eco-terrorists for the computer industry; a group of
old-skool programmers who are sickened by the current state of the industry.
We'll go down to plants and bomb them, artificially inflating demand by
creating a shortage.... if 128MB's of RAM cost $1000, do you think people
will still buy it? Well, they'll have to, and they'll be might pissed off
to. And then maybe, they'll demand software that doesn't need that much
memory. Maybe....
6. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
Considering this link was based on a web page hawking a general purpose
library that defeats the need of a compiler, we shouldn't take the author
seriously. It's like what an aspirin company once did when a report was
released showing the health benefits of taking aspirin.
While I do agree that script languages today are giving compilers a run for
their money (look at python and winbatch as examples), computer systems will
always operate on a system made up of built, or compiled, objects.
David Gay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aidan Bindoff" <abindoff at ONE.NET.AU>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 4:08 AM
Subject: Why Compilers are Doomed
> I don't really want to get involved in this but I thought some of you may
be
> interested in this article:
> http://www.equi4.com/jcw/wiki.cgi/56.html
>
> Kind Regards,
> Aidan
>
7. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:41:44 -0400, John Coonrod <jc at THP.ORG> wrote:
>My personal feeling is that there will continue to be a blend of both
>scripting and compilation for the next decade or so. Look at java - at the
>amount of javascript and java out there: jit, jsp, server-side script,
>servlets, beans... Not to mention VBA, VBS, ASP... The future is being
>carved out on the web, and whatever will facilitate web progress is where
>we'll see the breakthroughs.
>
>- John Coonrod
>
Very well said, John. I myself, am starting to learn Java(sorry!)
8. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:41:44 -0400, John Coonrod <jc at THP.ORG> wrote:
>
> >My personal feeling is that there will continue to be a blend of both
> >scripting and compilation for the next decade or so. Look at java - at the
> >amount of javascript and java out there: jit, jsp, server-side script,
> >servlets, beans... Not to mention VBA, VBS, ASP... The future is being
> >carved out on the web, and whatever will facilitate web progress is where
> >we'll see the breakthroughs.
> >
> >- John Coonrod
> >
>
> Very well said, John. I myself, am starting to learn Java(sorry!)
After some experimenting with Java, I decided it was just too slow for
my projects. I write programs for people who are trying to get 8 hours
of work done in approximately 8 hours, not 14 :)
Also, from a programmer's standpoint, it's a little annoying to have to
declare an object and methods for _everything_ no matter how trivial.
Regards,
Irv
9. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
John Coonrod wrote:
> I hope to encourage the Euphoria community to
> seriously consider something like win32lib but
> that will run on mac, windows and linux/xwindows
> transparently.
I'm actively investigating what it would take to port wxWindows to Euphoria,
but progress is slow as I fight with various C compilers. My plan is to get
a small port working using Peuphoria, and then whine incessantly to Robert
to port it to Euphoria.
Given that Robert is on a finite budget, the question becomes: what is the
best free/cheap cross-platform library to use? At a minimum, it should run
on Windows, X Windows, and the Mac. DOS and BeOS ports would be big plusses.
It should also have a nice toolkit attached to it. Here's my impression of
various free toolkits; you can find a more complete list at:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/7184/guitool.html
I've yet to look in depth at some, such as Whisper or YAAF, so this is
hardly the list to end all lists:
[GraphApp: http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~loki/graphapp/]
C library, in theory, runs on Windows, Mac and X Windows. In fact, Mac port
has been incomplete forever, and the X Windows ports are for Athena (with
custom widgets) and Motif, both fairly ancient toolkits. Not clear if there
has been any active development in a while. Fairly small.
[V: http://www.objectcentral.com/]
C++ library, runs on Windows, X Windows (Athena with custom widgets). GTK+
port is in progress, Mac port has been shelved due to lack of interest.
Fairly easy to use, but limited to a particular framework. In active
development.
[GTK+: http://www.gtk.org/]
C library, runs native on X Windows and Windows. WIndows port is available
requires a number of DLLs. Draws it's own widgets, so there is no native
look and feel. Third BeOS port in process; making good progress. In active
development.
[FLTK: http://fltk.easysw.com/]
C++ library, runs on Windows and X Windows. Seems to depend on
pre-processor, so porting to Euphoria might present some issues. Draws it's
own widgets with a Win9x look. In active development. Widget set not as
complete as other libraries.
[wxWindows: http://wxwindows.org/]
C++ library, runs on Windows, X Windows (Motif and GTK+) and Mac. The Mac
version is not current to the 2.x release, but a port is in process. There
are a number of ports in discussion or active development, including X
Windows (Qt), BeOS and OS/2, MGL, QNX/Photon and FLT. Very complete library,
but creates a large executable. In addition to widgets, it also has a number
of classes for making other operations portable as well.
-- David Cuny
10. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
I share your feelings about Java. It is the exact opposite of Euphoria in
ease of use.
However - one big advantage of java over C++ is, like Euphoria, it is almost
impossible to create memory leaks or eratically buggy code in java. The
beauty of java is that is really DOES work almost anywhere - I was able to
move fairly complex applications between a Cobalt Qube running on a MIPS
processor and a NT4.0 box without a hiccup. You can also, for example, get a
java version of VNC - allowing easy remote control of anything from
anything.
That is not something possible (yet) with Euphoria. A Mac Euphoria would be
a good project to do.
I hope to encourage the Euphoria community to seriously consider something
like win32lib but that will run on mac, windows and linux/xwindows
transparently.
===== Original Message from Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU> at 8/22/00 7:01 pm
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, you wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:41:44 -0400, John Coonrod <jc at THP.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> >My personal feeling is that there will continue to be a blend of both
>> >scripting and compilation for the next decade or so. Look at java - at the
>> >amount of javascript and java out there: jit, jsp, server-side script,
>> >servlets, beans... Not to mention VBA, VBS, ASP... The future is being
>> >carved out on the web, and whatever will facilitate web progress is where
>> >we'll see the breakthroughs.
>> >
>> >- John Coonrod
>> >
>>
>> Very well said, John. I myself, am starting to learn Java(sorry!)
>
>After some experimenting with Java, I decided it was just too slow for
>my projects. I write programs for people who are trying to get 8 hours
>of work done in approximately 8 hours, not 14 :)
>
>Also, from a programmer's standpoint, it's a little annoying to have to
>declare an object and methods for _everything_ no matter how trivial.
>
>Regards,
>Irv
11. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
Aug 22, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 23, 2000
On 22 Aug 2000, at 17:39, Cuny, David@DSS wrote:
> John Coonrod wrote:
>
> > I hope to encourage the Euphoria community to
> > seriously consider something like win32lib but
> > that will run on mac, windows and linux/xwindows
> > transparently.
>
> I'm actively investigating what it would take to port wxWindows to Euphoria,
> but progress is slow as I fight with various C compilers. My plan is to get
> a small port working using Peuphoria, and then whine incessantly to Robert
> to port it to Euphoria.
I hope Rob doesn't get wind of that! lol
> Given that Robert is on a finite budget, the question becomes: what is the
> best free/cheap cross-platform library to use?
I'm unclear what budget hastodo with development at RDS, given that Robert is
working on it anyways, and you are prolly spending more time at Eu programming
than
he is,, but i thought i'd toss this out, seeing that some people in weak
financial
situations might still be on the list.......
http://www.compgeeks.com/
has some alledgedly complete 486 puters with 24meg of ram for $76USD now.
Naturally they won't run Mac OS, but BeOS has been ported to the IBM clone
platform, and those puters will run *nix, i thinks. If you want a faster
motherbd, they
have 600Mhz ones for under $50, w/o cpu. By mixing/matching, you could maybe
drop
a newer motherbd into the old box and come out cheap.
Kat,
no guarantees,
i did not check these puters.
12. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Aug 22, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 23, 2000
Kat wrote:
> I'm unclear what budget hastodo with development at
> RDS, given that Robert is working on it anyways, and
> you are prolly spending more time at Eu programming
> than he is ...
I was referring to the price of the toolkits, not the cost of doing the
work. In a perfect world, the best toolkit would probably be Zinc
(http://www.zinc.com). There's a $500 "base" charge for the shared code, and
then additional cost for each module:
$500 for Windows
$3000 for all flavors of Unix/Motif or
$1500 for any one flavor of Unix/Motif
As much as I like Zinc, I get the impression that their future is a bit less
than rosy - but that's idle speculation.
The DOS and Mac prices are unlisted, I assume that they are even more
costly. So that's shelling out $2500 for two platforms, and even more for
additional platforms.
The other library that's very popular is Qt, by TrollTech. I've read the
specs, bought the book, played around with it for a bit - very, very slick.
But it's only available for two platforms (Windows and X11), and there are
no plans for a port to any other platform. In addition, it's tied into a
pre-processor - bleah! The price list is:
$1,550 for Windows
$1,550 for X11
$2,390 for Windows and X11
Both of these libraries are C++ based, which is less than ideal.
Hmmmm... wxWindows looks quite nice, even against the non-free contenders.
And there's work being done on a Qt port of wxWindows. 
I guess price *isn't* the issue, after all.
-- David Cuny
13. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
- Posted by John Coonrod <jc at THP.ORG>
Aug 22, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 23, 2000
Hmmm! I just visited www.wxWindows.org to learn about this...
So... one could envision a graphical euphoria linked to wxWindows that could
automatically interpret the same graphical programs on mac/unix/windows.
Fascinating!
===== Original Message from Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU> at 8/22/00
>
>Hmmmm... wxWindows looks quite nice, even against the non-free contenders.
>And there's work being done on a Qt port of wxWindows.
>
>I guess price *isn't* the issue, after all.
>
>-- David Cuny
14. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Dave Cuny wrote:
>
> Both of these libraries are C++ based, which is less than ideal.
>
> Hmmmm... wxWindows looks quite nice, even against the non-free contenders.
> And there's work being done on a Qt port of wxWindows.
>
> I guess price *isn't* the issue, after all.
What's your opinion of Fox?
AFAIK, it's C++, and 2 platform, but we don't have Euphoria for the Mac
at this point anyway..
Irv
15. Re: Why Compilers are Doomed
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Aug 22, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 23, 2000
Irv Mullins wrote:
> What's your opinion of Fox?
I've read a lot of nice things about FOX. As you mentioned, it only runs on
Windows and X11, which is limiting. It also emulates all it's widgets - and
very nice looking widgets, I'll add - which I think is ultimately not the
best choice.
-- David Cuny
