1. EUPHORIA SUCKS and I have to pay for it.
guys,
everybody replying with how wonderful an interpreter is...
interpreting is fun for playing around, but when you develope applications
massively, you want something running and compiled. doing a .bat file in 2004 is
rediculus.
if you do something do it correctly.
i assume all application PROGRAMMERS DON'T HAVE TIME to mess around with stupid
problems, we want to CONCENTRATE ON LOGIC.
VB or EUPHORIA or other langauges do the same thing, I hoped that EUPHORIA would
answer my exceptations.
what we need is:
1. simple interface (mostly visual) (not command lines.....)
2. access to a database (with above the 4gb limitation)
3. debugger
4. and distribution (hopefully smart enough not to replace existing system file)
all this in one package, for this I will pay.
Trying now WINDEV - it cost money, but it works and is not dependent on microsot
2. Re: EUPHORIA SUCKS and I have to pay for it.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:11:34 -0800, henri <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> guys,
> everybody replying with how wonderful an interpreter is...
> interpreting is fun for playing around, but when you develope applications
> massively, you want something running and compiled. doing a .bat file in 2004 is
> rediculus.
Well, consider the visual basic executeables.... IMO they're horrible
- you still need a whole HORDE of run-times to get it working, and
even a simple program is >1mb...
Java is interpreted, what of it?
I think it's a credit to Euphoria that the run-time for it can be
simply included with the file.
> if you do something do it correctly.
> i assume all application PROGRAMMERS DON'T HAVE TIME to mess around with
> stupid problems, we want to CONCENTRATE ON LOGIC.
Well, that's true, but *someone* has to deal with the problems. VB,
C++, Java, have millions of programs. People have dealt with the
problems. Euphoria's user-base is much smaller, some of the problems
still remain.
> VB or EUPHORIA or other langauges do the same thing, I hoped that EUPHORIA
> would answer my exceptations.
> what we need is:
> 1. simple interface (mostly visual) (not command lines.....)
> 2. access to a database (with above the 4gb limitation)
> 3. debugger
> 4. and distribution (hopefully smart enough not to replace existing system
> file)
>
Henri, you've hit the nail on the head, these are all problems
(although I'm not so sure about the issue with databases) with the
distributed Euphoria package. (What you get when you download
euphoria) The standard euphoria package is very dated, and is missing
many of the things that every programmer uses. (win32lib, a decent
editor, useful file associations)
1. Rob likes his ed.ex, but nobody else uses it. M Editor is much
better, so is the Euphoria IDE. Use one of them.
2. Access to a database? Use SQL - people have written SQL wrappers so
that you can access SQL through Euphoria. Most programming languages
don't have database access themselves, they use SQL.
3. Well, the embedded trace function is quite useful, don't let the
simple interface fool you. Rob's latest version of Euphoria purports
to make creating a third-party Euphoria debugger possible, but I don't
believe it will be possible until there is a variable_id function.
(How the hell else can we see what value a variable has, Rob?)
> all this in one package, for this I will pay.
Yes well............. 
--
MrTrick
3. Re: EUPHORIA SUCKS and I have to pay for it.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:58:17 +1100, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com>
wrote:
>Rob's latest version of Euphoria purports
>to make creating a third-party Euphoria debugger possible, but I don't
>believe it will be possible until there is a variable_id function.
>(How the hell else can we see what value a variable has, Rob?)
See execute.e, in particular RTLookup.
Regards,
Pete
4. Re: EUPHORIA SUCKS and I have to pay for it.
Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:11:34 -0800, henri <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
...
> > VB or EUPHORIA or other langauges do the same thing, I hoped that EUPHORIA
> > would answer my exceptations.
> > what we need is:
> > 1. simple interface (mostly visual) (not command lines.....)
> > 2. access to a database (with above the 4gb limitation)
> > 3. debugger
> > 4. and distribution (hopefully smart enough not to replace existing system
> > file)
> >
>
> Henri, you've hit the nail on the head, these are all problems
> (although I'm not so sure about the issue with databases) with the
> distributed Euphoria package. (What you get when you download
> euphoria) The standard euphoria package is very dated, and is missing
> many of the things that every programmer uses. (win32lib, a decent
> editor, useful file associations)
An IDE, along with the interface to Windows, should be supplied by
RDS. It's too much to expect people to do all that work in their spare
time, then contribute it (and support it) for free.
If RDS had spent the past 18 months creating their own, supported Windows
stuff instead of the dubious 'improvements' made in 2.5, they might have
a chance in the marketplace. As it stands, however, I can get Visual Basic,
Delphi, or Visual C++ for less than $100, and they all come with
all the necessary stuff to write Windows programs. So do a number of
other languages (many of them free).
Perhaps the best thing that could happen to Euphoria now is for Derek,
Judith, Bernie, et al to withdraw their libraries from circulation. Let Rob
do everything his way and see how things work out.
A drastic step? Not really - existing users already have the libraries
they need, so they wouldn't be inconvenienced. Newcomers (if there are
any) wouldn't be confused about what to download and would have fewer
complaints about incompatible libraries. The maintainers of those libraries
would get a well-deserved vacation.
Irv
