1. RE: bloated 2.5
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Nov 17, 2004
-
Last edited Nov 18, 2004
Ed Davis wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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.
There is no maintenance involved with the old installer.
The windows installer DOES cause problems. It's not so simple to reset
my customized environment. I have EUINC variables, a custom EUDIR, my
own editor associated with various files in different ways.
Customized context menus...
The setup creates alot of BS for me, just so I can try something that I
really have no intention of using anyways.
Rob wants people to use his public domain products. If he is smart, he
would make it as convenient as possible.
That was the whole issue in the first place, to get him to make a
windows installer at ALL! :/
He didn't achieve that. He made it easier for neophites to get their
feet wet, and made it more difficult for veterans to upgrade.
I don't know anybody who uses the default eu environment.
The very presence of EUINC contradicts any notion that we should.
<SNIP>
> 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.
They are clutter to people who can't even use the files.
What more reason does there have to be, to either document their purpose
better, or simply not include them in the distribution.
It makes alot more sense to me to just provide those files with the
translator, and have it separate.
<SNIP>
> Oh come on. It is only 205k. Good grief. If you don't like it,
> ignore it.
How does it have anything to do with what I like?
I'm being practical. Eu-in-EU has no bearing on the PD version of
Euphoria. Why should it be distributed with Eu? Of course, it's the code
that is used for the front end of the compiled interpreter. So what?
What good is that to me? How is it more important than something like
win32lib?
> 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.
True, still, so what? People didn't even use those other interpreters,
because it's not a script engine that people want.
An eu script engine is useful, but I fail to see how it gets so much
importance, just because RDS wrote it. If we, as public users can't make
significant use of it, I see no reason why it should be in the
distributable.
<SNIP>
> It took me all of 1 minute to reset the environment variables to
> what I wanted. Big deal.
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 can appreciate you not liking Euphoria, or Robert Craig, but no
> one is making you use Euphoria.
Who said I don't like Euphoria? Or even Robert Craig for that matter?
If I didn't like Euphoria, I wouldn't be here.
> I don't think your overall tone helps this mailing list.
I fail to see how my post about bloated 2.5 displayed an 'overall tone'.
For that matter, who are you to know me? Have you been around since I
started using euphoria, go and investigate before you start making
absurd accusations. I resent that implication.
Help this mailing list how? I'm supposed to be helping you?
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.
> Based on your posts of the past, if I was Robert Craig, I'd
> ignore most of what you write.
I don't care if he ignores me. The archives tell the tale. And other
people are listening, whether you are or not, I don't care.
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.
Why do you think I have an 'overall tone' in the first place?
> 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!
Euphoria and Robert Craig don't make me angry, they make me frustrated.
People who make comments like that one, make me angry.
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:
> The setup creates alot of BS for me, just so I can try
> something that I really have no intention of using anyways. Rob
> wants people to use his public domain products. If he is smart,
> he would make it as convenient as possible. That was the whole
> issue in the first place, to get him to make a windows
> installer at ALL! :/ He didn't achieve that. He made it easier
> for neophites to get their feet wet, and made it more difficult
> for veterans to upgrade. I don't know anybody who uses the
> default eu environment. The very presence of EUINC contradicts
> any notion that we should.
Well, I still don't see how it is difficult. But of course your
environment is different from mine, so it must have done
something to really mess you up.
> How does it have anything to do with what I like? I'm being
> practical. Eu-in-EU has no bearing on the PD version of
> Euphoria. Why should it be distributed with Eu?
Why should anything be distributed with the PD version?
The Euphoria-in-Euphoria interpreter is is a good example of a
large, complicated Euphoria program.
> Of course, it's the code that is used for the front end of the
> compiled interpreter. So what? What good is that to me? How is
> it more important than something like win32lib?
It is similar to all the programs in the demo directory. They
aren't strictly necessary, but they are examples of Euphoria
code.
I agree, for a user, win32lib is more important. I'd love it if
Euphoria had a simple cross platform GUI library, that came with
Euphoria, and was supported by the author. But it doesn't.
> 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.
> Who said I don't like Euphoria? Or even Robert Craig for that
> matter? If I didn't like Euphoria, I wouldn't be here.
Well, your came across as a mild flame (IMHO), and your posts
that I've been reading for quite a while, are usually the same
way, so I just assumed you didn't like him. I also strongly
disagree with people sometimes, but unless I wanted to alienate
them, I would try to not flame the person I was trying to
convince. Of course I may be breaking my own rule here?
> I fail to see how my post about bloated 2.5 displayed an
> 'overall tone'.
Well, it certainly seemed like a flame to me. Of course, that is
just my opinion, and I've already been wrong once before this
year - there could always be a second time 
> For that matter, who are you to know me?
Of course I don't know you.
> Have you been around since I started using euphoria, go and
> investigate before you start making absurd accusations. I
> resent that implication.
I don't know, when did you start using it? The first version I
downloaded was sometime in 1994. But I did not subscribe to the
mailing list until 1999.
My accusations are based on your past messages.
> Help this mailing list how? I'm supposed to be helping you?
No, I don't need your help. There are plenty of nice, helpful
people on the mailing list. Besides, I already know how to flame
- I use this list to improve my Euphoria programming.
> 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?
Actually, this is a decent mailing list. Of course I don't
understand why a few folks feel like they have to get all upset
because of some feature(s) not in Euphoria.
> 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.
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.
> Why do you think I have an 'overall tone' in the first place?
Because you do? Ok, again it is my opinion.
> Euphoria and Robert Craig don't make me angry, they make me
> frustrated. People who make comments like that one, make me
> angry.
It doesn't take much to get you angry. You should get out more
often, perhaps move away from the computer screen for a while?
(I'm just joking - of course. Feel free to get angry about it
though.)
I'd love it if Euphoria had a case statement. I wish the
debugger was better. I wouldn't even mind a goto , or at
least a continue statement. I'd like pass by reference. I'd
like structures.
Actually, there are lots of things I wish Euphoria had. But it
doesn't, and it doesn't look like it is going to get them. But
so what? If it doesn't fit my needs, I'll ask - politely.
Actually, I don't have too. It has all been asked before. And
it doesn't look like it is going to be added.
But it is just a programming language. And a neat programming
language. And with a few more of my pet features, it would be a
really great programming language But it is not something
worth getting all worked up about. C++ and Java still get the
job done, even if I don't have as much fun using them.
3. RE: bloated 2.5
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
