1. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Preposterous. Reminds me of Bill Gates "nobody will ever need more than
1024kb of RAM"
What about palmtops? I'm sure they dont run at any dazzling 2Ghz.
Don't you have any foresight? Don't you have any ambitions to port
euphoria to other platforms?
You are a hack. The only excuse I can think of for such rediculous logic
is laziness.
I'm sure there are quite a number of people who are hoping for someone
to make a port of eu to the palmtop.
BTW, I have a 2.5Ghz, and I won't use 2.5 because it takes too long to
load. Other than the fact that it breaks most of my code, and I can no
longer do dynamic includes.
I for one, prefer to use an interpreted language because I don't want
the hassles of compilation. That INCLUDES compile times. I should NEVER
notice compile time in an interpreter.
When I began using euphoria, I was using a 100Mhz w/16Mb RAM, and it
worked fine, now you are saying I need to have a 2Ghz machine?
What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
only to the now?
Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer, let
alone how to upgrade. Not many can afford to pay someone to update their
machine for them. Most non-techs don't give a damn if their PC is 100Mhz
or 3Ghz, as long as they can check their email and surf the web.
The office I work at still has a 300mhz at it's front desk. And it's
more than sufficient.
Until last year, the office was serving 10 machines with a 400Mhz
gateway. And it was quite sufficient also, the only reason it's not
still used, is because they got a router instead.
That 400Mhz is now used in one of the cubicles. Yeah all in this day and
age of >2Ghz PC's. Perhaps they should go and spend 10x$2000 to buy new
machines just so they can say they have modern equipment?
You think we're all rich or something?
Granted, assuming that everybody might be using 100Mgz PC's nowadays is
not reasonable, but 2Ghgz is far more unreasonable.
I think you should advertise that eu is recommended for 2Ghz PC's and
greater, and see how fast your income drops.
It's fortunate for you that eu targets newbie and hobbiest programmers,
because realistic programers will laugh in your face!
Chris Bensler
Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> don cole wrote:
> > Are you saying that with faster and faster machines coming out in the
> > future
> > speed of program execution will now longer be of concern to programers?
>
> No, I'm saying that the initial *parsing speed* will
> be less important in the future, since machine speeds
> will increase faster than programmers can write bigger programs.
> *Execution speed*, which is slightly faster with 2.5 than 2.4,
> will always be important. Programmers have craved faster execution
> speed for as long as computers have existed. There are always
> new applications coming along that can benefit from more speed.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
2. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
RDS had better remove the following statements from their
2.5 documents because they are no longer true.
<qoute>
* a high-performance, state-of-the-art interpreter that's
30 times faster than conventional interpreters such as
Perl and Python.
* lightning-fast pre-compilation. Your program source is
checked for syntax and converted into an efficient internal
form at over 35,000 lines per second on a lowly Pentium-150.
There's no need to mess around with extra "byte-code" files.
The Euphoria Interpreter is written in ANSI C, and can be
compiled with many different C compilers.
</qoute>
It would be cheaper to use a FREE "C", PASCAL, ASSEMBLER
interpeter or compiler available on the WEB to create
programs than to upgrade a user's hardware.
I can just see a new user downloading my w32engin.ew
and trying to load it; saying gee ! I better buy a faster
computer so I can use this wonderful library to write my
programs.
Once again RDS is asking us to adjust our way of doing
things to use their product.
When will RDS wake-up to the fact that we are customers
not just users.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
3. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> RDS had better remove the following statements from their
> 2.5 documents because they are no longer true.
>
> <qoute>
> * a high-performance, state-of-the-art interpreter that's
> 30 times faster than conventional interpreters such as
> Perl and Python.
>
> * lightning-fast pre-compilation. Your program source is
> checked for syntax and converted into an efficient internal
> form at over 35,000 lines per second on a lowly Pentium-150.
> There's no need to mess around with extra "byte-code" files.
>
>
> The Euphoria Interpreter is written in ANSI C, and can be
> compiled with many different C compilers.
>
> </qoute>
>
> It would be cheaper to use a FREE "C", PASCAL, ASSEMBLER
> interpeter or compiler available on the WEB to create
> programs than to upgrade a user's hardware.
>
> I can just see a new user downloading my w32engin.ew
> and trying to load it; saying gee ! I better buy a faster
> computer so I can use this wonderful library to write my
> programs.
>
> Once again RDS is asking us to adjust our way of doing
> things to use their product.
>
>
> When will RDS wake-up to the fact that we are customers
> not just users.
>
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
>
I'd suggest calming down a little here. 2.5 is alpha at this point folks!
Mark
4. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Mark Gaspar wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Mark Gaspar <mgaspar7 at pacbell.net>
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
> >
> >
> > RDS had better remove the following statements from their
> > 2.5 documents because they are no longer true.
> >
> > <qoute>
> > * a high-performance, state-of-the-art interpreter that's
> > 30 times faster than conventional interpreters such as
> > Perl and Python.
> >
> > * lightning-fast pre-compilation. Your program source is
> > checked for syntax and converted into an efficient internal
> > form at over 35,000 lines per second on a lowly Pentium-150.
> > There's no need to mess around with extra "byte-code" files.
> >
> >
> > The Euphoria Interpreter is written in ANSI C, and can be
> > compiled with many different C compilers.
> >
> > </qoute>
> >
> > It would be cheaper to use a FREE "C", PASCAL, ASSEMBLER
> > interpeter or compiler available on the WEB to create
> > programs than to upgrade a user's hardware.
> >
> > I can just see a new user downloading my w32engin.ew
> > and trying to load it; saying gee ! I better buy a faster
> > computer so I can use this wonderful library to write my
> > programs.
> >
> > Once again RDS is asking us to adjust our way of doing
> > things to use their product.
> >
> >
> > When will RDS wake-up to the fact that we are customers
> > not just users.
> >
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > My files in archive:
> > w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
> >
> > Can be downloaded here:
> > <a
> >
> > href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
> >
> >
> I'd suggest calming down a little here. 2.5 is alpha at this point
> folks!
>
> Mark
History speaks volumes.
Besides we aren't talking about 2.5, we're talking about Robert Craig's
comment. He's making excuses to justify the work he's already done. More
importantly, he's disregarding his patrons, and even Euphoria's
fundamental traits, as Bernie mentioned.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
5. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Mark Gaspar wrote:
>
> I'd suggest calming down a little here. 2.5 is alpha at this point folks!
>
> Mark
>
I have been around here for 6 years.
I contributed to the archive and have spent my money
to support euphoria so I think I have earn the right to
complain.
2.5 is a disaster !
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
6. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Chris Bensler wrote:
> You are a hack. The only excuse I can think of for such rediculous logic
> is laziness.
Heh! I put in a lot of hours making the front end slower!
That's not laziness. 
I did it after watching you fail miserably in your attempts
to make a Euphoria clone. By writing the front-end in Euphoria, I am
able to give you a complete 100% compatible Public Domain
Euphoria interpreter with full source, and no restrictions,
and you still aren't happy.
> BTW, I have a 2.5Ghz, and I won't use 2.5 because it takes too long to
> load.
The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
2 seconds to load. Pity.
> now you are saying I need to have a 2Ghz machine?
I don't have a 2 GHz machine, and I'm happy.
> What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
> can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
> only to the now?
You have customers?
Parse time is extremely important to you?
Why not get the binder for $39, or in your case, upgrade for $24?
Then your app will start up even *faster* than with 2.4.
> Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
Why not bind into one .exe?
> The office I work at still has a 300mhz at it's front desk. And it's
> more than sufficient.
> Until last year, the office was serving 10 machines with a 400Mhz
> gateway.
> ...
> You think we're all rich or something?
You work in an office that has 10 machines, but you can't
afford $24 for the Binder?
> It's fortunate for you that eu targets newbie and hobbiest programmers,
> because realistic programers will laugh in your face!
You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
time.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
7. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> I have been around here for 6 years.
> I contributed to the archive and have spent my money
> to support euphoria so I think I have earn the right to
> complain.
>
> 2.5 is a disaster !
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
>
I understand many of the concerns about 2.5, but I think that "disaster" is
wrong. What exactly makes it a disaster?
The things that bother me most are RDS unwillingness to bend on the include file
issue and the forward referencing of routine_id. Not that those issues really
affect me but the arugments for them make a lot of sense.
I understand that people are concerned with the startup time of 2.5 on older
machines. That is where you would utilize binding or translating to fix it. The
"slow startup" is now a reason to register instead of limiting statements for
debug or whatever.
The lack of a feature that gracefully exits a program if the version is too low
can also be fixed by binding/translating with the proper interpreter. Or the
user reading the docs. Or including a helpful comment on the source line where
you use a feature so it is displayed if an older interpreter runs it.
I certainly think that there are a lot of areas where Euphoria could improve,
and that Rob could be more responsive to the people who have contributed the most
to the language. But "disaster" or "hack" are not the words I would choose.
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
8. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
<snip>
> > What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
> > can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
> > only to the now?
>
> You have customers?
> Parse time is extremely important to you?
> Why not get the binder for $39, or in your case, upgrade for $24?
> Then your app will start up even *faster* than with 2.4.
>
> > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
>
> But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> Why not bind into one .exe?
>
<snip>
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
I have to agree with Rob on this one, WHY in the world would you want to FORCE
your customers to have to install the Euphoria Interpreter in order to be able
to run your software. If most people "have no clue" how to operate a computer
why confuse them more by having them run your software through an intreperter
instead of just clicking on an exe file?
Also, it's not really a good idea to release your source code with your software
where the customer can get in there and muck things up. If I was a customer
I would prefer clicking on an EXE file and not having to run through an
interpreter, adding more file associations or something just so I can click
on and .ex or .exw file and have it run the interpreter for me.
It just plain don't make any sense, if your software is any where near good
you should be able to make enough money from it to be able to afford a measly
$39.00.
Just my .02 cents.
Later.
Ferlin Scarborough
Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
http://www.gameuniv.net
My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
9. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> I understand that people are concerned with the startup time of 2.5 on older
> machines.
> That is where you would utilize binding or translating to fix it. The "slow
> startup"
> is now a reason to register instead of limiting statements for debug or
> whatever.
J:
Does this mean that a NEW USER or BEGINNER that wants to use a
large program or library has to buy the binder or translator
to use it ??????????????
The purpose of writing libraries is to help others to learn
programming or make a user's job easier and faster not to
create customers for RDS.
The loading speed is going to turn new user's away from
Euphoria.
2.5 loading speed is a disaster !
2.5 is not an improvement over the former way that Euphoria
was previously distibuted. I bought the "C" source code and
could modify if I wanted to. Nobody requested that the front
end be written in euphoria. RDS decided to do that.
The effort should of gone into creating a Compiler.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
10. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
> Chris Bensler wrote:
Lots of childish stuff such as:
> You are a hack. The only excuse I can think of for such rediculous logic
> is laziness.
To which Robert Craig replied:
> You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
> yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
> years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
> time.
All-right! It is about time! Go get 'em boy!
Euphoria is Robert Craig's software. Users have a choice to use
it or not. You might not even like it. Fine, don't use it. Or
complain nicely. But there is no need to flame. Get a life!
Repeat after me - "it is just a program".
Why don't you switch to Python and attack Guido? Of course, you
might end up with a dead horse in your bed, or something
11. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> J:
>
> Does this mean that a NEW USER or BEGINNER that wants to use a
> large program or library has to buy the binder or translator
> to use it ??????????????
>
> The purpose of writing libraries is to help others to learn
> programming or make a user's job easier and faster not to
> create customers for RDS.
>
> The loading speed is going to turn new user's away from
> Euphoria.
Good point. How does Euphoria 2.5 stack up against other interpreted languages?
(I don't count Java or C# because they are technically compiled into bytecode.)
Is it still faster than most versions of BASIC, which is its true competitor?
How about Python?
>
> 2.5 loading speed is a disaster !
>
> 2.5 is not an improvement over the former way that Euphoria
> was previously distibuted. I bought the "C" source code and
> could modify if I wanted to. Nobody requested that the front
> end be written in euphoria. RDS decided to do that.
> The effort should of gone into creating a Compiler.
How *do* 2.4 and previous versions handle the problem? Do they execute a line
of code right after it has been parsed and then set a flag when all lines have
been parsed? How does it work in the older versions and why couldn't it be
implemented in the Euphoria front end?
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
>
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
12. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Mark Gaspar wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest calming down a little here. 2.5 is alpha at this point folks!
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> I have been around here for 6 years.
> I contributed to the archive and have spent my money
> to support euphoria so I think I have earn the right to
> complain.
>
> 2.5 is a disaster !
>
Well, I've been around here for almost 7 years, and I must heartily
disagree. I haven't really noticed much difference, including on my
600Mhz Linux box (OK, it's not 233Mhz, but it's still pretty slow compared
to state of the art). The only time I really notice a slow down is when
I'm using the PD interpreter, especially when it's interpreted.
The parser is a little bit slower (cause it's not hand coded C), although
Rob says that he's got it sped up quite a bit for the beta release. Most
big programs (i.e., that use win32lib) don't do much until they get to the
end and hit the WinMain, anyway.
There are alternatives to make your code start up faster, too. Like,
don't initialize everything at the toplevel, and don't create things
until you need them. Of course, you could always bind/shroud. And if
you can't afford to register, you could use my version, which allows this
sort of thing, and my shrouded code seems to start up nearly as fast as
il files with the RDS backend (but they don't run as fast after that, of
course). Plus, it's got a better interactive debugger, IMHO.
I've started using the $ and crash_routine(). I've also been using the
PD source a lot (in case you haven't noticed). I guess I'd have to say
that I'm rather enjoying 2.5.
Matt Lewis
13. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Preposterous. Reminds me of Bill Gates "nobody will ever need more than
> 1024kb of RAM"
>
I think a meg was a luxury in those days and I believe he said 640KB (which
is even more preposterous). Of course, hardware manufacturers love what Bill
is doing for them today...
But can we ease up on the criticism, at least in the spirit of the holiday
season? Besides, we should save some arguments for the beta cycle...
-- Brian
14. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Ferlin Scarborough <ferlin1 at bellsouth.net>
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> <snip>
> > > What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
> > > can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
> > > only to the now?
> >
> > You have customers?
> > Parse time is extremely important to you?
> > Why not get the binder for $39, or in your case, upgrade for $24?
> > Then your app will start up even *faster* than with 2.4.
> >
> > > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
> >
> > But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> > Why not bind into one .exe?
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
> >
>
> I have to agree with Rob on this one, WHY in the world would you want to
> FORCE
> your customers to have to install the Euphoria Interpreter in order to
> be able
> to run your software. If most people "have no clue" how to operate a
> computer
> why confuse them more by having them run your software through an
> intreperter
> instead of just clicking on an exe file?
>
> Also, it's not really a good idea to release your source code with your
> software
> where the customer can get in there and muck things up. If I was a
> customer
> I would prefer clicking on an EXE file and not having to run through an
> interpreter, adding more file associations or something just so I can
> click
> on and .ex or .exw file and have it run the interpreter for me.
>
> It just plain don't make any sense, if your software is any where near
> good
> you should be able to make enough money from it to be able to afford a
> measly
> $39.00.
>
> Just my .02 cents.
>
> Later.
>
> Ferlin Scarborough
>
> Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
> http://www.gameuniv.net
>
> My Euphoria Home Page
> http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
If I wanted a compiler, I would be using a compiler.
I use an interpreter for my benefit not for my clients.
If I have to compile, run, debug, compile, run, debug, then why on EARTH
should I use an interpreter? Especially with 2.5 that doesn't even parse
on the fly, it's a glorified virtual machine, not an interpreter
anymore. Add on top of that, a hefty load time ranging in the seconds,
on a fast PC. That would apply to compile time too. Not just loading
time.
I also choose to use an intepreter because I take advantage of that
trait. I often use dynamic inclusion, and also make config files using
eu source. You can't compile either of those methods.
Installing euphoria on a clients machine is not a big deal either.
They don't know any different whatsoever. That would be a different
story if I tried that with 2.5
What about CGI apps? We are supposed to bind them too?
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
15. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> I also choose to use an intepreter because I take advantage of that
> trait. I often use dynamic inclusion, and also make config files using
> eu source. You can't compile either of those methods.
>
> Installing euphoria on a clients machine is not a big deal either.
> They don't know any different whatsoever. That would be a different
> story if I tried that with 2.5
Why is there any difference? OK, I understand that you've been taking
advantage of a feature that Rob has been warning might go away since it
was first brought up. You can't do that any more, but it shouldn't be
a huge surprise. Why are you installing alpha software on a client's
computer, anyway?
> What about CGI apps? We are supposed to bind them too?
How big are your CGI apps? If you're really concerned about speed, you'd
have already translated them already anyway. A CGI app in a 'production'
environment shouldn't be undergoing lots of editing anyway, so it shouldn't
really be a hardship to bind or translate once and leave running.
Matt Lewis
16. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> to state of the art). The only time I really notice a slow down is when
> I'm using the PD interpreter, especially when it's interpreted.
MATT:
NEW USERS AND BEGINNERS use THE PD INTERPRETER they don't BUY
the source or compiler or translator just to try the Euphoria.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
17. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Good point. How does Euphoria 2.5 stack up against other interpreted
> languages? (I
> don't count Java or C# because they are technically compiled into bytecode.)
> Is it still faster than most versions of BASIC, which is its true competitor?
> How
> about Python?
What makes you think that Euphoria doesn't use byte-codes that is the
IL and back-end portion of Euphoria ( RDS's version of byte-codes )
>
>
> How *do* 2.4 and previous versions handle the problem? Do they execute a line
> of code
> right after it has been parsed and then set a flag when all lines have been
> parsed?
> How does it work in the older versions and why couldn't it be implemented in
> the Euphoria
> front end?
Load any large library or program with PD version of Euphoria
and you see the difference between 2.4 and 2.5
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
18. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > to state of the art). The only time I really notice a slow down is when
> > I'm using the PD interpreter, especially when it's interpreted.
>
> MATT:
>
> NEW USERS AND BEGINNERS use THE PD INTERPRETER they don't BUY
> the source or compiler or translator just to try the Euphoria.
Um... I think Matt meant that he noticed the slowdown when interpreting with
eu.ex.
Plus the source and the translator come with the download. Of course this
doesn't quite refute your point because I wouldn't expect a newbie to download
and install OpenWatcom in order to try the translator.
>
> My files in archive:
> w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
>
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
19. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
>
> >
> > Good point. How does Euphoria 2.5 stack up against other interpreted
> > languages? (I
> > don't count Java or C# because they are technically compiled into bytecode.)
> > Is it still faster than most versions of BASIC, which is its true
> > competitor? How
> > about Python?
>
> What makes you think that Euphoria doesn't use byte-codes that is the
> IL and back-end portion of Euphoria ( RDS's version of byte-codes )
Sorry -- I know that Euphoria uses bytecodes. For that matter, so does Python
and Perl and I think even QBasic. What I meant was that C# and Java require an
*explicit* compilation step.
> >
> >
> > How *do* 2.4 and previous versions handle the problem? Do they execute a
> > line of code
> > right after it has been parsed and then set a flag when all lines have been
> > parsed?
> > How does it work in the older versions and why couldn't it be implemented
> > in the Euphoria
> > front end?
>
> Load any large library or program with PD version of Euphoria
> and you see the difference between 2.4 and 2.5
I haven't done this yet, but I'll be doing some benchmarking over the holidays.
I won't have 'net access so I'll have to post the results after the first of the
year.
But my question meant what is the *mechanism* for versions prior to 2.4 to begin
executing before parsing is complete? That is if it wouldn't give away any of
the (C) source code secrets.
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
>
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
20. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Jason Gade wrote:
> Sorry -- I know that Euphoria uses bytecodes. For that matter, so does Python
> and
> Perl and I think even QBasic. What I meant was that C# and Java require an
> *explicit*
> compilation step.
The front-end is the compilation step used to create the IL ( byte-code )
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
21. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > I also choose to use an intepreter because I take advantage of that
> > trait. I often use dynamic inclusion, and also make config files using
> > eu source. You can't compile either of those methods.
> >
> > Installing euphoria on a clients machine is not a big deal either.
> > They don't know any different whatsoever. That would be a different
> > story if I tried that with 2.5
>
> Why is there any difference? OK, I understand that you've been taking
> advantage of a feature that Rob has been warning might go away since it
> was first brought up. You can't do that any more, but it shouldn't be
> a huge surprise. Why are you installing alpha software on a client's
> computer, anyway?
>
> > What about CGI apps? We are supposed to bind them too?
>
> How big are your CGI apps? If you're really concerned about speed,
> you'd
> have already translated them already anyway. A CGI app in a
> 'production'
> environment shouldn't be undergoing lots of editing anyway, so it
> shouldn't
> really be a hardship to bind or translate once and leave running.
>
> Matt Lewis
When was it ever mentioned that euphoria will no longer parse on the
fly?
I know that dynamic includes are my hack, and I don't complain about
that, other than to mention that I can't do it anymore.
I would prefer if there were a real method of dynamic includes, but
there isn't, despite I dunno how many requests.
I consider the main trait of an intepreter to be the fact that it
interprets my code. Why is it called an interpreter if it has to be
compiled? It's not even JIT, it's compile, then execute.
Why is it necessary for me to give my clients an executable? The
interpreted code runs just fine, and it's alot less headaches for me.
Not to mention that I can actually take advantage of the fact that I'm
using an interpreter, rather than just some slow language with a nifty
syntax.
If I have to bind my programs, then that is an extra step I have to do.
I don't want to, I like using an interpeter for that reason, so I don't
have to.
How do you suggest I bind my linux CGI apps on my windows machine?
I should use SSH? I could also make a batch script to do it through the
webbrowser... I still don't think that is a very reasonable solution.
What about automatically generated source code? How should I bind that?
I could just give my clients the binder with the cgi app I suppose,
doesn't matter much to me.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
22. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Jason Gade wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Good point. How does Euphoria 2.5 stack up against other interpreted
> > > languages? (I
> > > don't count Java or C# because they are technically compiled into
> > > bytecode.)
> > > Is it still faster than most versions of BASIC, which is its true
> > > competitor? How
> > > about Python?
> >
> > What makes you think that Euphoria doesn't use byte-codes that is the
> > IL and back-end portion of Euphoria ( RDS's version of byte-codes )
>
> Sorry -- I know that Euphoria uses bytecodes. For that matter, so does
> Python and Perl and I think even QBasic. What I meant was that C# and
> Java require an *explicit* compilation step.
>
> > >
> > > How *do* 2.4 and previous versions handle the problem? Do they execute
> > > a line of code
> > > right after it has been parsed and then set a flag when all lines have
> > > been parsed?
> > > How does it work in the older versions and why couldn't it be
> > > implemented in the Euphoria
> > > front end?
> >
> > Load any large library or program with PD version of Euphoria
> > and you see the difference between 2.4 and 2.5
>
> I haven't done this yet, but I'll be doing some benchmarking over the
> holidays. I won't have 'net access so I'll have to post the results
> after the first of the year.
> But my question meant what is the *mechanism* for versions prior to 2.4
> to begin executing before parsing is complete? That is if it wouldn't
> give away any of the (C) source code secrets.
>
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > My files in archive:
> > w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
> >
> > Can be downloaded here:
> > <a
> >
> > href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
> >
> >
> =====================================
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
<= 2.4 compiles in blocks.
Eg parse everything until a new block is reached, such as a routine or
include statement. Execute that code, then parse the next block.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
23. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
Dec 21, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 22, 2004
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > to state of the art). The only time I really notice a slow down is when
> > I'm using the PD interpreter, especially when it's interpreted.
>
> MATT:
>
> NEW USERS AND BEGINNERS use THE PD INTERPRETER they don't BUY
> the source or compiler or translator just to try the Euphoria.
>
No, when I say 'PD Interpreter,' I mean eu.ex.
Matt Lewis
24. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > You are a hack. The only excuse I can think of for such rediculous logic
> > is laziness.
>
> Heh! I put in a lot of hours making the front end slower!
> That's not laziness.
I know, that's just dumb. I wasn't referring to that though. I was
referring to your reluctance to reconsider your implementation. Instead
you'd rather make absurd observations.
> I did it after watching you fail miserably in your attempts
> to make a Euphoria clone. By writing the front-end in Euphoria, I am
> able to give you a complete 100% compatible Public Domain
> Euphoria interpreter with full source, and no restrictions,
> and you still aren't happy.
Watching me? I have never tried to make an eu clone. I once took on the
role of project coordinator for OpenEu but abandoned it after realizing
that everyone would rather just cluck instead doing anything.
> > BTW, I have a 2.5Ghz, and I won't use 2.5 because it takes too long to
> > load.
>
> The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> 2 seconds to load. Pity.
2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
> > now you are saying I need to have a 2Ghz machine?
>
> I don't have a 2 GHz machine, and I'm happy.
>
> > What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
> > can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
> > only to the now?
>
> You have customers?
> Parse time is extremely important to you?
> Why not get the binder for $39, or in your case, upgrade for $24?
> Then your app will start up even *faster* than with 2.4.
Spoken like a true salesman.
Or I can just continue using 2.3 right? I'm happy with it, other than
cdecl, that I have never had a need for, and the fact that I can't get
bug fixes! :/
There is no value in me getting 2.5 at all, not even bug fixes, in fact
the opposite. You've fixed things that were never broken, only to make
the situation even worse.
> > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
>
> But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> Why not bind into one .exe?
They don't have to run a bunch of files. Task scheduler runs it. And
setting up a euphoria environment is no different than requiring a user
to have a runtime module for java.
> > The office I work at still has a 300mhz at it's front desk. And it's
> > more than sufficient.
> > Until last year, the office was serving 10 machines with a 400Mhz
> > gateway.
> > ...
> > You think we're all rich or something?
>
> You work in an office that has 10 machines, but you can't
> afford $24 for the Binder?
Firstly, I won't buy it on principle.
Second, binding defeats the purpose of using an interpeter.
If I MUST bind, then I should just use a compiler instead.
Third, I can't parse on the fly with 2.5
Fourth, I can't get around eu's include system anymore.
And finally, I don't want to bind all my programs.
I use euphoria because it's interpreted, not just because it's a high
level language and because I like it's syntax.
<SNIP>
> You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
> yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
> years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
> time.
Is that a point in your favour? Was that supposed to be insulting to me?
It just shows how little you regard your customers.
I've been around for several years petitioning for advancements and
offering suggestions to improve the presentation and organization of
euphoria. I've offered my help on numerous occasions as have others, yet
you continuously decline, and yet you continuously fail to meet the
demands of the community.
Maybe if you would listen more, I would bitch less.
I'm not going to accomplish anything by patting you on the back for
efforts that nobody asked for.
Actually, I DID send you a personal email last year commending you for
putting some work into finally updating the website, and offered several
suggestions that you replied to with general agreement, but obviously
you were just humouring me, because Jason Gade just finished asking for
one of the very same suggestions I made. And the web update didn't go
very far either.
So, praise didn't work either. I'll stick with bickering, it's effective
at least to some extent. If I can't affect you, then at least I can
affect your patrons. Maybe some of the new, prospective users can be
more enlightened than I was, and move on before they get attached.
Kind words get overlooked, but everyone wants to know what's going on
when there is contention.
When either the community starts responding more, or you do, then maybe
it will be more beneficial to commend instead of condemn.
At least I can say, 2.5 has had one good effect. It's bringing people
out of their closets. I have never seen as much feedback for any release
of euphoria, or suggestions made. I'm glad to see people speaking up,
instead of just walking away.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
25. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Chris Bensler wrote:
> 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
Almost any web browser or office suite takes longer than 2 seconds to start up.
<snip>
> > > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
> >
> > But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> > Why not bind into one .exe?
>
>
> They don't have to run a bunch of files. Task scheduler runs it. And
> setting up a euphoria environment is no different than requiring a user
> to have a runtime module for java.
What do you mean Task scheduler runs it? I hope you don't mean Task Manager. I
doubt that most computer newbies understand Task Manager any better than they
understand how to set up their computer to have the proper environment to run the
interpreter. Are you saying that it is better to have the customer set up
Euphoria on his or her machine, set the environment variables and associations
properly than it is to have a single exe with perhaps a handful of support files?
<snip>
> Firstly, I won't buy it on principle.
> Second, binding defeats the purpose of using an interpeter.
> If I MUST bind, then I should just use a compiler instead.
> Third, I can't parse on the fly with 2.5
> Fourth, I can't get around eu's include system anymore.
> And finally, I don't want to bind all my programs.
> I use euphoria because it's interpreted, not just because it's a high
> level language and because I like it's syntax.
There's alway Python... it's interpreted. Or Perl. Or the various versions of
BASIC. Or anything from
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Interpreted/ .
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
> > yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
> > years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
> > time.
>
> Is that a point in your favour? Was that supposed to be insulting to me?
> It just shows how little you regard your customers.
>
> I've been around for several years petitioning for advancements and
> offering suggestions to improve the presentation and organization of
> euphoria. I've offered my help on numerous occasions as have others, yet
> you continuously decline, and yet you continuously fail to meet the
> demands of the community.
>
> Maybe if you would listen more, I would bitch less.
> I'm not going to accomplish anything by patting you on the back for
> efforts that nobody asked for.
>
> Actually, I DID send you a personal email last year commending you for
> putting some work into finally updating the website, and offered several
> suggestions that you replied to with general agreement, but obviously
> you were just humouring me, because Jason Gade just finished asking for
> one of the very same suggestions I made. And the web update didn't go
> very far either.
>
> So, praise didn't work either. I'll stick with bickering, it's effective
> at least to some extent. If I can't affect you, then at least I can
> affect your patrons. Maybe some of the new, prospective users can be
> more enlightened than I was, and move on before they get attached.
>
> Kind words get overlooked, but everyone wants to know what's going on
> when there is contention.
>
> When either the community starts responding more, or you do, then maybe
> it will be more beneficial to commend instead of condemn.
>
> At least I can say, 2.5 has had one good effect. It's bringing people
> out of their closets. I have never seen as much feedback for any release
> of euphoria, or suggestions made. I'm glad to see people speaking up,
> instead of just walking away.
>
>
> Chris Bensler
> Code is Alchemy
Chris, I respect your opinions. It also saddens me when people who have
contributed a lot to Euphoria get pissed when RDS stubbornly discounts their
views.
So, who is the audience for Euphoria? I think that it is, and has always been,
programmers seeking a step up from BASIC. Not a C killer. Not a Java killer.
Not a major applications or systems language.
Users see promise in the language, not because of the fact that it is
interpreted but because of the fact that it is fast, expressive, and has a cool
feature in sequences. The frustration comes when those users want features added
to Euphoria to move it into the major applications realm. I think RDS has made
very clear that Euphoria is for the beginning to intermediate programmer.
But what do I know, I'm just a hardware guy... ;^)
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
26. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Dec 22, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 23, 2004
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Chris, I respect your opinions. It also saddens me when people who have
> contributed
> a lot to Euphoria get pissed when RDS stubbornly discounts their views.
>
> So, who is the audience for Euphoria? I think that it is, and has always
> been, programmers
> seeking a step up from BASIC. Not a C killer. Not a Java killer. Not a
> major applications
> or systems language.
>
> Users see promise in the language, not because of the fact that it is
> interpreted but
> because of the fact that it is fast, expressive, and has a cool feature in
> sequences.
> The frustration comes when those users want features added to Euphoria to
> move it
> into the major applications realm. I think RDS has made very clear that
> Euphoria is
> for the beginning to intermediate programmer.
>
> But what do I know, I'm just a hardware guy... ;^)
>
> =====================================
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
>
It interesting though Jason that there is a section in documentation that
aims on enticing C/C++ programmers to migrate to Euphoria.
Look for 'C.html' in your eudir/documentation folder.
27. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
Dec 22, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 23, 2004
Vincent wrote:
> It interesting though Jason that there is a section in documentation that
> aims on enticing C/C++ programmers to migrate to Euphoria.
> Look for 'C.html' in your eudir/documentation folder.
>
Yeah, I know. Marketing should be a four-letter word. ;^)
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
28. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
Dec 22, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 23, 2004
Vincent wrote:
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > So, who is the audience for Euphoria? I think that it is, and has always
> > been, programmers
> > seeking a step up from BASIC. Not a C killer. Not a Java killer. Not a
> > major applications
> > or systems language.
> >
> It interesting though Jason that there is a section in documentation that
> aims on enticing C/C++ programmers to migrate to Euphoria.
> Look for 'C.html' in your eudir/documentation folder.
Or here: http://www.rapideuphoria.com/c.htm
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
29. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Dec 22, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 23, 2004
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> > The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> > 2 seconds to load. Pity.
>
> 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
>
I was able to get my 105 MB Windows EU program to translate
and complie perfectly, to a 70 MB EXE (uncompressed) 71 KB(kilo-bytes) EXE
file (ultra-compressed) But took 3.5 hours to translate and "45 minutes"
to do the compiling with Open Watcom 1.3 It could be alot worse if
it was 105 MB of user defined ruitines. Yes, Watcom is the slowest
but its the best for the translator. It takes about 20 minutes to
translate and compile Enhanced IDE. Eu2C is my favorate product, even
more than Euphoria it self :P LOL
30. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Dec 22, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 23, 2004
Jason Gade wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> > my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
>
> Almost any web browser or office suite takes longer than 2 seconds to
> start up.
I compared it to compilers, not to applications in general.
You don't have to open a new instance of MS Word everytime you edit your
document and want to see the changes.
>
> <snip>
> > > > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
> > >
> > > But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> > > Why not bind into one .exe?
> >
> >
> > They don't have to run a bunch of files. Task scheduler runs it. And
> > setting up a euphoria environment is no different than requiring a user
> > to have a runtime module for java.
>
> What do you mean Task scheduler runs it? I hope you don't mean Task
> Manager. I doubt that most computer newbies understand Task Manager any
> better than they understand how to set up their computer to have the
> proper environment to run the interpreter. Are you saying that it is
> better to have the customer set up Euphoria on his or her machine, set
> the environment variables and associations properly than it is to have a
> single exe with perhaps a handful of support files?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Firstly, I won't buy it on principle.
> > Second, binding defeats the purpose of using an interpeter.
> > If I MUST bind, then I should just use a compiler instead.
> > Third, I can't parse on the fly with 2.5
> > Fourth, I can't get around eu's include system anymore.
> > And finally, I don't want to bind all my programs.
> > I use euphoria because it's interpreted, not just because it's a high
> > level language and because I like it's syntax.
>
> There's alway Python... it's interpreted. Or Perl. Or the various
> versions of BASIC. Or anything from
> ://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Interpreted/
> .
>
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
> > > yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
> > > years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
> > > time.
> >
> > Is that a point in your favour? Was that supposed to be insulting to me?
> > It just shows how little you regard your customers.
> >
> > I've been around for several years petitioning for advancements and
> > offering suggestions to improve the presentation and organization of
> > euphoria. I've offered my help on numerous occasions as have others, yet
> > you continuously decline, and yet you continuously fail to meet the
> > demands of the community.
> >
> > Maybe if you would listen more, I would bitch less.
> > I'm not going to accomplish anything by patting you on the back for
> > efforts that nobody asked for.
> >
> > Actually, I DID send you a personal email last year commending you for
> > putting some work into finally updating the website, and offered several
> > suggestions that you replied to with general agreement, but obviously
> > you were just humouring me, because Jason Gade just finished asking for
> > one of the very same suggestions I made. And the web update didn't go
> > very far either.
> >
> > So, praise didn't work either. I'll stick with bickering, it's effective
> > at least to some extent. If I can't affect you, then at least I can
> > affect your patrons. Maybe some of the new, prospective users can be
> > more enlightened than I was, and move on before they get attached.
> >
> > Kind words get overlooked, but everyone wants to know what's going on
> > when there is contention.
> >
> > When either the community starts responding more, or you do, then maybe
> > it will be more beneficial to commend instead of condemn.
> >
> > At least I can say, 2.5 has had one good effect. It's bringing people
> > out of their closets. I have never seen as much feedback for any release
> > of euphoria, or suggestions made. I'm glad to see people speaking up,
> > instead of just walking away.
> >
> >
> > Chris Bensler
> > Code is Alchemy
>
> Chris, I respect your opinions. It also saddens me when people who have
> contributed a lot to Euphoria get pissed when RDS stubbornly discounts
> their views.
>
> So, who is the audience for Euphoria? I think that it is, and has
> always been, programmers seeking a step up from BASIC. Not a C killer.
> Not a Java killer. Not a major applications or systems language.
>
> Users see promise in the language, not because of the fact that it is
> interpreted but because of the fact that it is fast, expressive, and has
> a cool feature in sequences. The frustration comes when those users
> want features added to Euphoria to move it into the major applications
> realm. I think RDS has made very clear that Euphoria is for the
> beginning to intermediate programmer.
>
> But what do I know, I'm just a hardware guy... ;^)
>
> =====================================
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
Let me explain WHY I am so adamant.
First of all. I LIKE Euphoria. So why all the complaining all the time?
It boils down to the ability to get supporting software tools to assist
with Euphoria programming. Not by RDS, but by other contributors like
you and I, just as we've all been doing for the past however many years.
There just isn't enough of us.
Currently, there is about 1 to 2 dozen contributions to the RDS archives
in any one month. Alot of the time those contribuutions are from the
same people, and alot of the times those contributions are updates to
previous contribs. That's not very good statistics for a programming
language. It's alive but not kicking very hard.
So the question is, why isn't there very many people using Euphoria?
1. The quality of the online Euphoria resources is below-par. These are
the first things that people see when they come to the eu site.
Regardless of the gaudy theme, the site is inadequately organized. There
is not enough documentation available, such as tutorials.
There is not enough standardization of contributions.
There is not enough background information.
...more things I can't think of right now...
2. RDS fails to meet the users demands. Not just mine, but anybody's.
It doesn't matter if the entire community is in general concensus,
Robert Craig will not budge from his 'vision'
3. There is not enough quality, standardized libraries and tools in the
archives.
So, my motivation is the growth of euphoria. If eu does well, it means
more and better quality contributions for us to utilize. Currently it's
very limited to a bunch of adhoc libraries, that don't even work half
the time, or don't have documentation, etc..
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
31. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Vincent wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > > The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> > > 2 seconds to load. Pity.
> >
> > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> > my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
> >
> I was able to get my 105 MB Windows EU program to translate
> and complie perfectly, to a 70 MB EXE (uncompressed) 71 KB(kilo-bytes) EXE
> file (ultra-compressed) But took 3.5 hours to translate and "45 minutes"
> to do the compiling with Open Watcom 1.3 It could be alot worse if
> it was 105 MB of user defined ruitines. Yes, Watcom is the slowest
> but its the best for the translator. It takes about 20 minutes to
> translate and compile Enhanced IDE. Eu2C is my favorate product, even
> more than Euphoria it self :P LOL
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this list.
(Both the 2sec compiler, and the 105MB program). That aside, I mostly
use Borland, because it builds *so* much faster (although looking now,
I see I've still got OW 1.2).
Can you please tell me what you envision doing that would legitimately
have 105MB of source code? That all *needs* to be loaded at once?
Matt Lewis
32. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Dec 23, 2004
-
Last edited Dec 24, 2004
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> > >
> > > > The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> > > > 2 seconds to load. Pity.
> > >
> > > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> > > my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
> > >
> > I was able to get my 105 MB Windows EU program to translate
> > and complie perfectly, to a 70 MB EXE (uncompressed) 71 KB(kilo-bytes) EXE
> > file (ultra-compressed) But took 3.5 hours to translate and "45 minutes"
> > to do the compiling with Open Watcom 1.3 It could be alot worse if
> > it was 105 MB of user defined ruitines. Yes, Watcom is the slowest
> > but its the best for the translator. It takes about 20 minutes to
> > translate and compile Enhanced IDE. Eu2C is my favorate product, even
> > more than Euphoria it self :P LOL
>
> This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this list.
> (Both the 2sec compiler, and the 105MB program). That aside, I mostly
> use Borland, because it builds *so* much faster (although looking now,
> I see I've still got OW 1.2).
>
> Can you please tell me what you envision doing that would legitimately
> have 105MB of source code? That all *needs* to be loaded at once?
>
> Matt Lewis
>
It was mearly a test to see how stable the translators actually are..
Tho simple, 105 MB was a demanding test. Both the Linux and Windows
translators worked perfectly. I assume FreeBSD one too would work
DOS failed however. It also proves that compressed translated/compiled
EXEs can still be smaller than if binded. Using UPX 1.92b with the --brute
option I was able to bring that 70 MB EXE (35 megs smaller than origional
source, because the compiler and translator optimized the "simple repeated"
code) to 71 KB (not MB) without a noticable decrease in loading time.
Why I did it? Because I was bored and wanted somthing to do. tho
I didnt stay on my computer while the process was taking place
it took 4 hours to do. And ofcourse there would never be a need to
have such a huge program or likely realisticly make a program
that big.. but it proves that it could be done!!!
33. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
On 23 Dec 2004, at 3:55, Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> > >
> > > > The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> > > > 2 seconds to load. Pity.
> > >
> > > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute my
> > > code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
> > >
> > I was able to get my 105 MB Windows EU program to translate
> > and complie perfectly, to a 70 MB EXE (uncompressed) 71 KB(kilo-bytes) EXE
> > file (ultra-compressed) But took 3.5 hours to translate and "45 minutes" to
> > do
> > the compiling with Open Watcom 1.3 It could be alot worse if it was 105 MB
> > of
> > user defined ruitines. Yes, Watcom is the slowest but its the best for the
> > translator. It takes about 20 minutes to translate and compile Enhanced IDE.
> > Eu2C is my favorate product, even more than Euphoria it self :P LOL
>
> This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this list.
<!!WHEW!!>
I agree. How long did it take to debug 105 megabytes of source code?
Kat
34. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Georg Wrede wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Georg Wrede <georg at iki.fi>
>
> > I like the process of:
> > Edit -> Run,
> > Instead of:
> > Edit -> Bind -> Run
>
>
> > So I buy the binder so that I can now bind everytime I change a file
> > before I run it.
> >
> > I prefer: Edit - Run
> > over: Edit - BIND - Run
>
> Now I understand why Euphoria can be blamed for being a hobbyist
> programming language. If the people who use it run the code
> after every edit, then they really are hobbyists.
>
> <flame>
>
> In the old days when I had to learn programming, you had to write
> long chunks of code, check that the logic and content were right,
> and then get a reservation at the terminal room to punch in your
> code. We were allowed a maximum of 30min per person per day there.
> This was because there were only a half dozen paper terminals,
> and we were some 300 students.
>
> That was hardly the change-one-line-and-rerun method. But we
> sure learned to program. Heck, we even had to think in advance!
> Actually, to many of us now, sitting at the keyboard writing
> code is not Programming. What we call Programming is when you
> sit at your desk, drawing data structures or flowcharts or UML
> on paper or chalkboard while doing Hard Thinking. Or Think
> while driving or in the shower, or walking the dog.
>
> Only when you've done this Programming, you walk to
> the computer and punch in the code.
>
> <double flame>
>
> And any nontrivial task gets done sooner and better, and needs
> less debugging than with the "try-and-retry" method.
>
> I dare say, one never even becomes a good programmer unless
> one separates thinking and typing.
>
> </double flame>
>
> Now, precisely because the target audience of Visual Basic is
> the never-get-past-beginner kind of people, VB even checks your
> syntax while writing.
>
> </flame>
>
> The speed of Euphoria is perfectly adequate. Period.
>
> Those who call themselves non-hobbyist programmers have used
> and are using compiled languages in addition to Euphoria.
> Having got used to them removes the anxiety of a couple of
> seconds' wait.
>
> Try this for a change:
>
> Run
> -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> -> Run
>
> Sure beats Edit -> Run -> Edit -> Run
We could all sleep in caves still too :P
If Euphoria would return all parser errors at once, what you are saying
might be more acceptible.
However, interpeted programming is not quite the same as compiled
programming.
With compilers, you have extensive error reporting, and a heavy duty
debugger, and a degree in computer science to be able to use them
effectively.
You are right in that people should be planning before they code, but I
don't know anybody that plans mistakes.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
35. RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
>
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> >
> >
> > posted by: Georg Wrede <georg at iki.fi>
> >
> > > I like the process of:
> > > Edit -> Run,
> > > Instead of:
> > > Edit -> Bind -> Run
> >
> >
> > > So I buy the binder so that I can now bind everytime I change a file
> > > before I run it.
> > >
> > > I prefer: Edit - Run
> > > over: Edit - BIND - Run
> >
> > Now I understand why Euphoria can be blamed for being a hobbyist
> > programming language. If the people who use it run the code
> > after every edit, then they really are hobbyists.
> >
> > <flame>
> >
> > In the old days when I had to learn programming, you had to write
> > long chunks of code, check that the logic and content were right,
> > and then get a reservation at the terminal room to punch in your
> > code. We were allowed a maximum of 30min per person per day there.
> > This was because there were only a half dozen paper terminals,
> > and we were some 300 students.
> >
> > That was hardly the change-one-line-and-rerun method. But we
> > sure learned to program. Heck, we even had to think in advance!
> > Actually, to many of us now, sitting at the keyboard writing
> > code is not Programming. What we call Programming is when you
> > sit at your desk, drawing data structures or flowcharts or UML
> > on paper or chalkboard while doing Hard Thinking. Or Think
> > while driving or in the shower, or walking the dog.
> >
> > Only when you've done this Programming, you walk to
> > the computer and punch in the code.
> >
> > <double flame>
> >
> > And any nontrivial task gets done sooner and better, and needs
> > less debugging than with the "try-and-retry" method.
> >
> > I dare say, one never even becomes a good programmer unless
> > one separates thinking and typing.
> >
> > </double flame>
> >
> > Now, precisely because the target audience of Visual Basic is
> > the never-get-past-beginner kind of people, VB even checks your
> > syntax while writing.
> >
> > </flame>
> >
> > The speed of Euphoria is perfectly adequate. Period.
> >
> > Those who call themselves non-hobbyist programmers have used
> > and are using compiled languages in addition to Euphoria.
> > Having got used to them removes the anxiety of a couple of
> > seconds' wait.
> >
> > Try this for a change:
> >
> > Run
> > -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> > -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> > -> Think -> Think -> Think -> Type
> > -> Run
> >
> > Sure beats Edit -> Run -> Edit -> Run
>
>
> We could all sleep in caves still too :P
>
> If Euphoria would return all parser errors at once, what you are saying
> might be more acceptible.
>
> However, interpeted programming is not quite the same as compiled
> programming.
> With compilers, you have extensive error reporting, and a heavy duty
> debugger, and a degree in computer science to be able to use them
> effectively.
>
> You are right in that people should be planning before they code, but I
> don't know anybody that plans mistakes.
>
> Chris Bensler
> Code is Alchemy
>
I should add:
Why is it do you think that almost every compiler (actually every one
I've ever seen) returns as many errors as it can, even if those errors
are cascaded?
Also, why is that almost every compiler has a highly advanced debuggger?
The answer is: so that you don't have to spend so much time in
compilation. Granted nowadays with faster machines, compilation time is
not as big of a concern anymore.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
