1. bloated 2.5
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Nov 17, 2004
-
Last edited Nov 18, 2004
First of all.
A few years ago when people were vying for a windows installer for
euphoria, myself included, we didn't mean to make it the ONLY solution.
I was perfectly happy using the console based installer, even if I have
to configure my own environment variables.
The the purpose of the hand-holding setup installer was to help cater to
new users more.
Now you've gone and completely turned the table Robert. Give us our
console-based installer back.
Second, since when does the euphoria translator have anything to do with
the interpeter. When I download the interpreter, that's what I want. Not
a whole bunch of files that I can't use. I have absolutely no interest
in the translator, and I wasted time trying to figure out what all those
stubs were, and then I deleted them anyways. Over 2MB!? Sheesh, and I
thought you were concerned about bloating the distributable.
There isn't even any information about those files other than a brief
file description in bin.doc
Same thing for the Eu-in-Eu source code. It's novel for the time being,
but in 6 months, people aren't going to care about the Eu-in-Eu source
code. It doesn't appear that it's useful for anything more than making
some utilities like a custom debugger or script engine. It's definitely
not a replacement for the compiled interpreter, and there doesn't appear
to be any way for PD users to build a front end that can be used with
the binary backend. It should be a separate download. Correct me if I'm
wrong, maybe it just needs to be documented better. If all I wanted was
an eu script engine, David Cuny made one over 5 years ago. Several other
people have made them too. This Eu-in-Eu being included with the PD
distributable seems like a gimmick to me. Hopefully I'm wrong, and there
is indeed a way for PD users to make IL code that can be run by
backend.exe
Third, PUT SOME EFFORT INTO YOUR INSTALLER!! Don't you know that
everybody judges a book by it's cover, despite the cliche?
The setup is extremely undesirable. Especially for seasoned users.
I have to resort to installing new copies of Euphoria on an alternate
machine, and manually copy it over to my workstation, because I don't
want it mucking up my custom eu environment.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
2. Re: bloated 2.5
- Posted by Ed Davis <ed_davis2 at yahoo.com>
Nov 17, 2004
-
Last edited Nov 18, 2004
Chris Bensler wrote:
>Now you've gone and completely turned the table Robert. Give us
>our console-based installer back.
I think that for the effort involved, that it would not be worth
the time for him to maintain two installers. If you are a
seasoned user, the windows installer should not cause any
problems.
>Second, since when does the euphoria translator have anything to
>do with the interpeter. When I download the interpreter, that's
>what I want. Not a whole bunch of files that I can't use. I have
>absolutely no interest in the translator, and I wasted time
>trying to figure out what all those stubs were, and then I
>deleted them anyways. Over 2MB!? Sheesh, and I thought you were
>concerned about bloating the distributable. There isn't even any
>information about those files other than a brief file
>description in bin.doc
Again, I don't see what the problem is. For a seasoned user such
as yourself, simply delete the files. Of course, they don't
really hurt anything. And 2 megs isn't much these days. Euphoria
is still much smaller than most programming languages.
>Same thing for the Eu-in-Eu source code. It's novel for the time
>being, but in 6 months, people aren't going to care about the
>Eu-in-Eu source code. It doesn't appear that it's useful for
>anything more than making some utilities like a custom debugger
>or script engine. It's definitely not a replacement for the
>compiled interpreter, and there doesn't appear to be any way for
>PD users to build a front end that can be used with the binary
>backend. It should be a separate download. Correct me if I'm
>wrong, maybe it just needs to be documented better. If all I
>wanted was an eu script engine, David Cuny made one over 5 years
>ago. Several other people have made them too. This Eu-in-Eu
>being included with the PD distributable seems like a gimmick to
>me. Hopefully I'm wrong, and there is indeed a way for PD users
>to make IL code that can be run by backend.exe
Oh come on. It is only 205k. Good grief. If you don't like it,
ignore it.
And, all due respect to the authors of the other
Euphoria-in-Euphoria interpreter, the one included with 2.5
appears to better and faster, and supports the entire Euphoria
language, when compared to the Delroy Gayle (original author)
interpreter.
>Third, PUT SOME EFFORT INTO YOUR INSTALLER!! Don't you know that
>everybody judges a book by it's cover, despite the cliche? The
>setup is extremely undesirable. Especially for seasoned users. I
>have to resort to installing new copies of Euphoria on an
>alternate machine, and manually copy it over to my workstation,
>because I don't want it mucking up my custom eu environment.
It took me all of 1 minute to reset the environment variables to
what I wanted. Big deal.
I can appreciate you not liking Euphoria, or Robert Craig, but no
one is making you use Euphoria. I don't think your overall tone
helps this mailing list. Based on your posts of the past, if I
was Robert Craig, I'd ignore most of what you write. You might
even have some legitimate gripes, but you come across as if
you're angry. Hey, it is only a programming language - get a
life!
3. Re: bloated 2.5
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Davis"
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: bloated 2.5
>
> posted by: Ed Davis <ed_davis2 at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
>
>>Now you've gone and completely turned the table Robert. Give us
>>our console-based installer back.
>
> I think that for the effort involved, that it would not be worth
> the time for him to maintain two installers. If you are a
> seasoned user, the windows installer should not cause any
> problems.
Right.
It SHOULDN'T !!!
But it DOES !!!
(Angry Face)
>>Third, PUT SOME EFFORT INTO YOUR INSTALLER!! Don't you know that
>>everybody judges a book by it's cover, despite the cliche? The
>>setup is extremely undesirable. Especially for seasoned users. I
>>have to resort to installing new copies of Euphoria on an
>>alternate machine, and manually copy it over to my workstation,
>>because I don't want it mucking up my custom eu environment.
>
> It took me all of 1 minute to reset the environment variables to
> what I wanted. Big deal.
There are more changes than just environment variables.
REGISTRY Association changes.
unkmar
4. Re: bloated 2.5
Unkmar wrote:
> There are more changes than just environment variables.
> REGISTRY Association changes.
That is a definitely a harder problem. You have to know what
you're doing, and it does take a few minutes to fix, unless you
happened to create a registry file of your eu specific registry
changes beforehand.
I guess that is a good reason it is called an Alpha release?
Hopefully, that will be fixed in the beta.
5. Re: bloated 2.5
Rob: One thing very helpful and easy to do, would be to provide an
alternative to the flashy installer. All it needs to be is a zip
archive of all the necessary files, and a warning next to is saying
"Files only - not recommended for beginners" and problem solved! It
wouldn't increase bandwidth costs much, people would download one or
the other, not both.
I don't like the registry association changes either. Although I
understand that to an absolute newbie being able to open an editor
without understanding window's intricacies is helpful, many people
have associations set up already, and don't want to change them. I
believe that is something that needs to be addressed in the normal
installer as well. When it installs, have it *CHECK* for existing
associations, and ask the user if they want them to be overwritten. If
INNO won't let you do it, use a different installer package, or write
your own.
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> >>Third, PUT SOME EFFORT INTO YOUR INSTALLER!! Don't you know that
> >>everybody judges a book by it's cover, despite the cliche? The
> >>setup is extremely undesirable. Especially for seasoned users. I
> >>have to resort to installing new copies of Euphoria on an
> >>alternate machine, and manually copy it over to my workstation,
> >>because I don't want it mucking up my custom eu environment.
> >
> > It took me all of 1 minute to reset the environment variables to
> > what I wanted. Big deal.
Chris man, while I agree with you on some issues, I seriously think
you need to calm down a little. 2.5 is at *alpha* - yes, it needs some
improvements before being considered finished.
--
MrTrick
6. Re: bloated 2.5
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Davis"
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: bloated 2.5
>
> posted by: Ed Davis <ed_davis2 at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
[Snip]
>> That is a HACK solution. That type of attitude infests this
>> community, and it's WRONG. Firstly, just because it doesn't
>> affect you, doesn't mean it doesn't affect others. Second, the
>> mere fact that YOU have to manually do anything, and you don't
>> even have the option to stop eu from meddling with your own
>> setup, is a reflection of Euphoria's quality.
>
> I agree, it should not mess with your setup, and I agree, you
> should not have to change anything. And I agree that it should
> be fixed. But I don't agree it is worth SHOUTING about.
Those actions PREVENTED me from EVER installing v2.4.
I assume you would ask, "How can it prevent?"
Answer: I knew ahead of time from the 2.3 install and from
others that it would cause me problems. Therefore, I never
installed. I didn't want to DEAL with the problems.
Not even ONCE.
And you don't think it is worth SHOUTING ABOUT?
>> This euphoria community is petty. It's not worth my effort to
>> try and help 'this mailing list'. My perspective is much larger
>> than this tiny, lazy community.
>
> So why on earth do you hang around? Why would you waste your
> time on a "petty", "tiny, lazy community", when you have
> something much larger in mind?
I'll answer that, even if he already has. In hopes to educate and hope
to help Euphoria the language. Not by helping the Euphoria community.
Doing the first will do the latter in time.
>> He ignores everyone, I don't feel special. he's been doing that
>> since the day I became familiar with Eu and the mailing list.
>
> Really? He seems to participate here pretty often. Just because
> he doesn't choose to add the features you request, that doesn't
> mean he is ignoring you. It means he has a different opinion. It
> is his business to run his business the way he sees fit. But I
> fail to see why you get so upset about out it - let me correct
> that - why you seem so upset about it.
Add features?
How about removing blunders?
> If I buy a product, and I don't like it, I return it (if I can).
> If I think it has potential, I might try to tell someone how they
> can improve it. But so what if they don't do anything with my
> suggestions. It is their product, and they are free to manage it
> as they see fit. Why should I get all worked up about it?
> Life's too short for that. Besides, there are other, real
> problems (you know, things like your children, spouse, job, etc)
> that always can use attention. Euphoria not being perfect for me
> isn't a real problem in the grand scheme of things.
I don't mind it not being perfect. But it would be nice if RC
hadn't apparently gone out of his way to make some things difficult.
>> Why do you think I have an 'overall tone' in the first place?
>
> Because you do? Ok, again it is my opinion.
He does ! Whether he wants to admit it or not.
unkmar
7. Re: bloated 2.5
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> Rob: One thing very helpful and easy to do, would be to provide an
> alternative to the flashy installer. All it needs to be is a zip
> archive of all the necessary files, and a warning next to is saying
> "Files only - not recommended for beginners" and problem solved! It
> wouldn't increase bandwidth costs much, people would download one or
> the other, not both.
Maybe this would be useful, maybe not. For preventing registry
association changes it is not necessary.
> I don't like the registry association changes either. Although I
> understand that to an absolute newbie being able to open an editor
> without understanding window's intricacies is helpful, many people
> have associations set up already, and don't want to change them. I
> believe that is something that needs to be addressed in the normal
> installer as well. When it installs, have it *CHECK* for existing
> associations, and ask the user if they want them to be overwritten. If
> INNO won't let you do it, use a different installer package, or write
> your own.
INNO let us do it, as I previously wrote (see thread Euphoria 2.5 alpha).
<snipped old text>
Regards,
Juergen
--
A: Because it considerably reduces the readability of the text.
Q: Why?
A: Top posting.
Q: What is annoying in e-mail and news?
8. Re: bloated 2.5
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> > Rob: One thing very helpful and easy to do, would be to provide an
> > alternative to the flashy installer. All it needs to be is a zip
> > archive of all the necessary files, and a warning next to is saying
> > "Files only - not recommended for beginners" and problem solved! It
> > wouldn't increase bandwidth costs much, people would download one or
> > the other, not both.
>
> Maybe this would be useful, maybe not. For preventing registry
> association changes it is not necessary.
True, but there will always be those who want the installer to do
something differently. By providing the files on their own, these
people can install it exactly how they want it, and if something goes
wrong they have only themselves to blame.
> > If INNO won't let you do it, use a different installer package, or write
> > your own.
>
> INNO let us do it, as I previously wrote (see thread Euphoria 2.5 alpha).
Good. But right now, the Euphoria installer doesn't check for
associations before overwriting them - that needs fixing.
--
MrTrick
9. Re: bloated 2.5
Unkmar wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Davis"
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:56 PM
> Subject: RE: bloated 2.5
>
> >
> > posted by: Ed Davis <ed_davis2 at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> That is a HACK solution. That type of attitude infests this
> >> community, and it's WRONG. Firstly, just because it doesn't
> >> affect you, doesn't mean it doesn't affect others. Second, the
> >> mere fact that YOU have to manually do anything, and you don't
> >> even have the option to stop eu from meddling with your own
> >> setup, is a reflection of Euphoria's quality.
> >
> > I agree, it should not mess with your setup, and I agree, you
> > should not have to change anything. And I agree that it should
> > be fixed. But I don't agree it is worth SHOUTING about.
>
> Those actions PREVENTED me from EVER installing v2.4.
> I assume you would ask, "How can it prevent?"
> Answer: I knew ahead of time from the 2.3 install and from
> others that it would cause me problems. Therefore, I never
> installed. I didn't want to DEAL with the problems.
> Not even ONCE.
>
> And you don't think it is worth SHOUTING ABOUT?
I don't understand the hysteria on this point.
On XP you just right-click a file,
choose "Open with...", and then select the program
you want to use with that file type.
You don't have to venture into the registry.
Other Windows versions let you do the same thing just as easily.
I will however use Juergen's INNO solution and
make it an option to associate Euphoria file types
with the usual Euphoria programs. That means some
beginners will turn it off, and later wish they
had left it on.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
10. Re: bloated 2.5
Patrick Barnes wrote:
>> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> Rob: One thing very helpful and easy to do, would be to provide an
>>> alternative to the flashy installer. All it needs to be is a zip
>>> archive of all the necessary files, and a warning next to is saying
>>> "Files only - not recommended for beginners" and problem solved! It
>>> wouldn't increase bandwidth costs much, people would download one or
>>> the other, not both.
>>
>> Maybe this would be useful, maybe not. For preventing registry
>> association changes it is not necessary.
>
> True, but there will always be those who want the installer to do
> something differently. By providing the files on their own, these
> people can install it exactly how they want it, and if something goes
> wrong they have only themselves to blame.
Agreed.
>>> If INNO won't let you do it, use a different installer package, or write
>>> your own.
>>
>> INNO let us do it, as I previously wrote (see thread Euphoria 2.5 alpha).
>
> Good. But right now, the Euphoria installer doesn't check for
> associations before overwriting them - that needs fixing.
That's why I provided a sample INNO script for that purpose, together
with the regarding ready to try installation program.
Regards,
Juergen
11. Re: bloated 2.5
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> I don't understand the hysteria on this point.
> On XP you just right-click a file,
> choose "Open with...", and then select the program
> you want to use with that file type.
> You don't have to venture into the registry.
> Other Windows versions let you do the same thing just as easily.
Are you serious ?!?!
First point: I've gone to the trouble of setting permanent associations
for E EX EW EXW files to run my preferred editor. Then I install the
next Eu and bang! - I'm forced go and set these up again. Your installation
should be polite and ask first, rather than barge in and assume you can
mess up my explicit settings.
Second point: The Right-Click and "Open with..." is not something I want
to do everytime I wish to edit a source file using my preferred editor.
Okay, so I can tick the 'Use this always in future' check box. But I
had already done that so why did you force me to do it again. This is
just impolite behaviour. Good user interface behaviour is to respect
the user's previous choices.
> I will however use Juergen's INNO solution and
> make it an option to associate Euphoria file types
> with the usual Euphoria programs. That means some
> beginners will turn it off, and later wish they
> had left it on.
Why do you assume they will turn it off? They are beginners not morons.
If you distrust beginners so much, then have a "standard" option
in which these associations are always done and a "custom" one
in which you always ask the user. However, I would suspect the
better behaviour would be ... if no associations exist, then create them
otherwise leave them alone.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
12. Re: bloated 2.5
Man if Euphoria is so great (and I think it is) Why are we using
another program to install it anyway.
Give the option to turns reg settings and the like on or off please.
Tony
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:05:32 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> wrote:
>
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> >
> >
> > posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> >
> > Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I don't understand the hysteria on this point.
> > > On XP you just right-click a file,
> > > choose "Open with...", and then select the program
> > > you want to use with that file type.
> > > You don't have to venture into the registry.
> > > Other Windows versions let you do the same thing just as easily.
> >
> > Are you serious ?!?!
> >
> > First point: I've gone to the trouble of setting permanent associations
> > for E EX EW EXW files to run my preferred editor. Then I install the
> > next Eu and bang! - I'm forced go and set these up again. Your
> > installation
> > should be polite and ask first, rather than barge in and assume you can
> > mess up my explicit settings.
> >
> > Second point: The Right-Click and "Open with..." is not something I want
> > to do everytime I wish to edit a source file using my preferred editor.
> > Okay, so I can tick the 'Use this always in future' check box. But I
> > had already done that so why did you force me to do it again. This is
> > just impolite behaviour. Good user interface behaviour is to respect
> > the user's previous choices.
> >
> > > I will however use Juergen's INNO solution and
> > > make it an option to associate Euphoria file types
> > > with the usual Euphoria programs. That means some
> > > beginners will turn it off, and later wish they
> > > had left it on.
> >
> > Why do you assume they will turn it off? They are beginners not morons.
> >
> > If you distrust beginners so much, then have a "standard" option
> > in which these associations are always done and a "custom" one
> > in which you always ask the user. However, I would suspect the
> > better behaviour would be ... if no associations exist, then create them
> > otherwise leave them alone.
> >
> > --
> > Derek Parnell
> > Melbourne, Australia
>
> Just provide the files, without the stupid installer, it doesn't do
> anything for updrades anyways.
> How hard is it to make a zip file. The instructions of how to setup the
> environment are already there.
>
> I agree that the installer should have standard and custom options.
> But I wasn't expecting Rob to bother with that much effort.
> Just give us the files, so we don't have to use the installer, and he
> can take all the time he wants.
>
>
> Chris Bensler
> Code is Alchemy
>
>
>
>
--
Regards
Tony Steward
www.locksdownunder.com
IF IT IS TO BE IT IS UP TO ME!
13. Re: bloated 2.5
Unkmar wrote:
>
> posted by: Ed Davis
> >
> > I agree, it should not mess with your setup, and I agree, you
> > should not have to change anything. And I agree that it should
> > be fixed. But I don't agree it is worth SHOUTING about.
>
> Those actions PREVENTED me from EVER installing v2.4.
> I assume you would ask, "How can it prevent?"
> Answer: I knew ahead of time from the 2.3 install and from
> others that it would cause me problems. Therefore, I never
> installed. I didn't want to DEAL with the problems.
> Not even ONCE.
>
> And you don't think it is worth SHOUTING ABOUT?
No. You're cutting your NOSE off to spite your FACE. There are obviously
problems with THE installer. I haven't HAD any W2K, but THEN I don't
use associations to START programs, except for the associations WITH the
interpreter itself.
But YOUR solution is clearly SILLY.
Matt Lewis
14. Re: bloated 2.5
Derek Parnell wrote:
> Robert Craig wrote:
<snip>
>> I will however use Juergen's INNO solution and
>> make it an option to associate Euphoria file types
>> with the usual Euphoria programs. That means some
>> beginners will turn it off, and later wish they
>> had left it on.
>
> Why do you assume they will turn it off? They are beginners not morons.
>
> If you distrust beginners so much, then have a "standard" option
> in which these associations are always done and a "custom" one
> in which you always ask the user.
A "standard" and a "custom" option only for this purpose would be
overkill IMHO (although it is possible with Inno Setup). I think a check
box with an appropriate warning such as
[x] Associate Euphoria file types with the respective programs
(only experienced users should turn this off!).
should be sufficient.
> However, I would suspect the
> better behaviour would be ... if no associations exist, then create them
> otherwise leave them alone.
I like this idea. This is also possible with Inno Setup, using the flag
"createvalueifdoesntexist". It could look something like this:
<ISScript>
...
[Registry]
Root: HKCR; SubKey: .exw; ValueType: string; ValueData: EUWinApp; Flags:
uninsdeletekey createvalueifdoesntexist
...
</ISScript>
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
15. Re: bloated 2.5
- Posted by CoJaBo <cojabo at suscom.net>
Nov 18, 2004
-
Last edited Nov 19, 2004
Ed Davis wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> >Now you've gone and completely turned the table Robert. Give us
> >our console-based installer back.
>
> I think that for the effort involved, that it would not be worth
> the time for him to maintain two installers. If you are a
> seasoned user, the windows installer should not cause any
> problems.
>
> >Second, since when does the euphoria translator have anything to
> >do with the interpeter. When I download the interpreter, that's
> >what I want. Not a whole bunch of files that I can't use. I have
> >absolutely no interest in the translator, and I wasted time
> >trying to figure out what all those stubs were, and then I
> >deleted them anyways. Over 2MB!? Sheesh, and I thought you were
> >concerned about bloating the distributable. There isn't even any
> >information about those files other than a brief file
> >description in bin.doc
>
> Again, I don't see what the problem is. For a seasoned user such
> as yourself, simply delete the files. Of course, they don't
> really hurt anything. And 2 megs isn't much these days. Euphoria
> is still much smaller than most programming languages.
>
> >Same thing for the Eu-in-Eu source code. It's novel for the time
> >being, but in 6 months, people aren't going to care about the
> >Eu-in-Eu source code. It doesn't appear that it's useful for
> >anything more than making some utilities like a custom debugger
> >or script engine. It's definitely not a replacement for the
> >compiled interpreter, and there doesn't appear to be any way for
> >PD users to build a front end that can be used with the binary
> >backend. It should be a separate download. Correct me if I'm
> >wrong, maybe it just needs to be documented better. If all I
> >wanted was an eu script engine, David Cuny made one over 5 years
> >ago. Several other people have made them too. This Eu-in-Eu
> >being included with the PD distributable seems like a gimmick to
> >me. Hopefully I'm wrong, and there is indeed a way for PD users
> >to make IL code that can be run by backend.exe
>
> Oh come on. It is only 205k. Good grief. If you don't like it,
> ignore it.
>
> And, all due respect to the authors of the other
> Euphoria-in-Euphoria interpreter, the one included with 2.5
> appears to better and faster, and supports the entire Euphoria
> language, when compared to the Delroy Gayle (original author)
> interpreter.
>
> >Third, PUT SOME EFFORT INTO YOUR INSTALLER!! Don't you know that
> >everybody judges a book by it's cover, despite the cliche? The
> >setup is extremely undesirable. Especially for seasoned users. I
> >have to resort to installing new copies of Euphoria on an
> >alternate machine, and manually copy it over to my workstation,
> >because I don't want it mucking up my custom eu environment.
I had to do the same thing.
>
> It took me all of 1 minute to reset the environment variables to
> what I wanted. Big deal.
It took me a good 3 hours on the upgrade to 2.4,
mainly beacause it kept currupting the registry.
>
> I can appreciate you not liking Euphoria, or Robert Craig, but no
> one is making you use Euphoria. I don't think your overall tone
> helps this mailing list. Based on your posts of the past, if I
> was Robert Craig, I'd ignore most of what you write. You might
> even have some legitimate gripes, but you come across as if
> you're angry. Hey, it is only a programming language - get a
> life!
>
