1. Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
Can someone list the major improvements of 2.5 over 2.4, after reading
many posts and looking through info i haven't found much reason to
install the 2.5 that's been sitting on my desktop for 2 days. Nor have
i seen any posts praising the release of 2.5. Why does it all seem to
be negative??
2. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
spent memory wrote:
> Can someone list the major improvements of 2.5 over 2.4,
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/relnotes.htm
> after reading
> many posts and looking through info i haven't found much reason to
> install the 2.5 that's been sitting on my desktop for 2 days.
Once people start using $ and crash_routine(), and posting
that code to the Archive, you'll have to install 2.5. 
> Nor have i seen any posts praising the release of 2.5.
> Why does it all seem to be negative??
People tend to notice the changes that they don't like
before they appreciate the changes that they do like.
Any change at all, no matter how trivial, is likely to
offend someone. For instance removing a warning message
that was pretty rare and almost always a just a nuisance,
has already disturbed a few people, but I'm sure it will
be a minor improvement for 90% of users who would otherwise
scratch their heads over how to stop it without stopping
other warnings at the same time.
Some people complained about speed, then discovered it
was their mistake, or something weird in their setup.
Someone complained trace wasn't working, then realized it was
his mistake.
Startup time is an issue for people running large programs
on old machines, but that will get steadily better as
the front end is speeded up, and these old machines are
gradually retired. Machine speed increases much faster
over the years than average program size.
The install program had a couple of people in hysterics
because it changed one of their Euphoria file associations.
They didn't realize you could just right click and set it
back in a few seconds.
Some wisdom I've gained after doing this for many years
is this:
You can never satisfy the demand for new features by
providing new features. You just make it worse!
When you give people something new, the first thing
they do is start asking for enhancements of what you've
given them.
By giving people an open source Euphoria, they immediately
starting demanding more openness, and more ways to use the
open source, and they get upset when they can't have it
right away.
The people on this list who tend to be the most negative,
also tend to be people who have been on this list for many
years, and apparently have not found anything better
to use than Euphoria in all that time.
Having said that, I must admit that it's negative
comments that are more likely to push me into improving
Euphoria. Too many positive comments and I might just
crack open a beer and go watch a DVD for a couple of
hours instead of trying to improve things.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
Robert Craig wrote:
> Once people start using $ and crash_routine(), and posting
> that code to the Archive, you'll have to install 2.5.
I've started using the $-feature in Win4Eu, and I must say:
it's a really great improvement. It doesn't seem that spectacular,
but it's a time saver, and it makes the code look a bit better.
Maybe it's also a bit faster (less parsing, special opcode, ...),
I don't know.
I see (experienced) people leaving Euphoria, searching for better
languages. At work, I program in C#, and it's a really cool language
with a lot of features, a solid framework with all the possible
functionality (networking, gui, xml, database, ...) and one of the
best IDEs I've worked with (you can download the Express edition for
free).
Yet, at home I still use Euphoria for most of my coding. Why? Because
I think Euphoria (as a language) is beautiful. Of course it needs a lot
of improvement, but the essence is beautiful. And if you check out the
contributions I've made, you can see that I haven't made a single
PRACTICAL application for a specific use. All the contributions I've
made are libraries, to be used by other programmers, to make it easier
for programmers to do certain things. That is my way of trying to improve
the Euphoria-experience, without actually changing the language.
One of the best things about Euphoria, is the archive, the many
contributions. Why did Derek keep maintaining Win32Lib for so long?
To improve the Euphoria-experience. Because he still had hope for Euphoria.
Unfortunately, Derek has lost that hope. But I still have a little hope,
that's why I'm creating Win4Eu in the first place. I started Win4Eu,
because I felt that Win32Lib (and IDE) has reached a certain limit.
The main problem with Win32Lib (and IDE) that I feel, is that it's hard
to extend, to create new features (like controls). That will be one of
the key features of Win4Eu, the easy extensibility. I'm trying to design
Win4Eu to be modular, and to support third-party extensions, so I don't
have to incorporate all the possible components and controls in the base-
library.
Robert, a lot of great contributors have lost hope on Euphoria, and have
left. I hope you realize that more people will leave, if you don't do
something about it. Euphoria needs people like Derek and Irv. Without the
contributions, Euphoria is lost.
--
Recycle your pets.
tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier
tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
4. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
Tommy Carlier wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> > Once people start using $ and crash_routine(), and posting
> > that code to the Archive, you'll have to install 2.5.
>
> I've started using the $-feature in Win4Eu, and I must say:
> it's a really great improvement. It doesn't seem that spectacular,
> but it's a time saver, and it makes the code look a bit better.
> Maybe it's also a bit faster (less parsing, special opcode, ...),
> I don't know.
>
> I see (experienced) people leaving Euphoria, searching for better
> languages. At work, I program in C#, and it's a really cool language
> with a lot of features, a solid framework with all the possible
> functionality (networking, gui, xml, database, ...) and one of the
> best IDEs I've worked with (you can download the Express edition for
> free).
>
> Yet, at home I still use Euphoria for most of my coding. Why? Because
> I think Euphoria (as a language) is beautiful. Of course it needs a lot
> of improvement, but the essence is beautiful. And if you check out the
> contributions I've made, you can see that I haven't made a single
> PRACTICAL application for a specific use. All the contributions I've
> made are libraries, to be used by other programmers, to make it easier
> for programmers to do certain things. That is my way of trying to improve
> the Euphoria-experience, without actually changing the language.
>
> One of the best things about Euphoria, is the archive, the many
> contributions. Why did Derek keep maintaining Win32Lib for so long?
> To improve the Euphoria-experience. Because he still had hope for Euphoria.
> Unfortunately, Derek has lost that hope. But I still have a little hope,
> that's why I'm creating Win4Eu in the first place. I started Win4Eu,
> because I felt that Win32Lib (and IDE) has reached a certain limit.
> The main problem with Win32Lib (and IDE) that I feel, is that it's hard
> to extend, to create new features (like controls). That will be one of
> the key features of Win4Eu, the easy extensibility. I'm trying to design
> Win4Eu to be modular, and to support third-party extensions, so I don't
> have to incorporate all the possible components and controls in the base-
> library.
>
> Robert, a lot of great contributors have lost hope on Euphoria, and have
> left. I hope you realize that more people will leave, if you don't do
> something about it. Euphoria needs people like Derek and Irv. Without the
> contributions, Euphoria is lost.
>
> --
> Recycle your pets.
> tommy online: <a
> href="http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier">http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier</a>
> tommy.blog: <a
> href="http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com">http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com</a>
>
I started messing around in the new ISO standard of C (C99). It has many
improvements
over the ANSI standard of C, in language definition and libraries. Like C++
style comments,
inline function, __func__ ruitine, 64 bit integer (long long) data type, boolean
data type
(_Bool), and much more.. And I just love C now that I tried it, specially with a
nice IDE
like Dev C/C++ using the mingw port of GCC. Compliler/Linker setup is easy and
compiling
and running is as easy as it is in EU (no console parameters to type). Sure C
has
many problems, mostly due to the lack of any protection to the coder; but
Im getting the hang of it. Thanks to EU learning C is much easier now too :)
Euphoria is very nice too, tho I can see how it is limited by the lack of
developers tools and stuff (IDEs, project/resource managers, windows debuggers,
etc.)
along with a fairly outdated standard library, tho it is possible to build
upon it I suppose. However I'm satisified with EU at this point with the
new 2.5 release.
Keep up the good work Rob
5. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
Rob, this is a good attitude to have. Though I think it might invite a few too
many negative comments ;)
> Having said that, I must admit that it's negative
> comments that are more likely to push me into improving
> Euphoria. Too many positive comments and I might just
> crack open a beer and go watch a DVD for a couple of
> hours instead of trying to improve things.
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
I for one have got 2.5 ready to install, but am holding back until I see a
reduction in the negative comments - then I'll take the leap.
Even though I'm a two year user of Euphoria, I don't make too many comments,
except ones that, IMO, might be useful to the community. I have seen a fair few
new names appear here in the last few days with nothing useful to say in their
messages. I too get annoyed at certain little things that Euphoria does and does
not do, but I get over it and work out a way around the probelm if possible.
Nothing has yet really stumped me completely - or else there are other damn good
people out here in the forum who are kind enough to show the way.
Overall I say keep u the good work, but, as I think Derek once said, work at
more smaller improvements released more often - if possible.
Cheers,
Dave
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
Server-Side DB driven web sites,
Software Development
and part-time games developer
contact dave_p at purpletiger dot com
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
6. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
Hi
I too am sorry the likes of Irv an Derek leave euphoria, and development of
their libraries. They obviously have their reasons to do so, and I also wish
them well for the future.
However, without wishing to sound like a Phillistine, I think Euphoria is a
great language, (despite my comp entry!) and I think Rob is doing a great job
with it.
http://members.aol.com/chriscrylex/euphoria.htm
http://uboard.proboards32.com/
7. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
On 20 Nov 2004, at 19:08, Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> spent memory wrote:
> > Can someone list the major improvements of 2.5 over 2.4,
>
> http://www.rapideuphoria.com/relnotes.htm
>
> > after reading
> > many posts and looking through info i haven't found much reason to
> > install the 2.5 that's been sitting on my desktop for 2 days.
>
> Once people start using $ and crash_routine(), and posting
> that code to the Archive, you'll have to install 2.5.
Copy/replace. Wow.
> > Nor have i seen any posts praising the release of 2.5.
> > Why does it all seem to be negative??
>
> People tend to notice the changes that they don't like
> before they appreciate the changes that they do like.
> Any change at all, no matter how trivial, is likely to
> offend someone. For instance removing a warning message
> that was pretty rare and almost always a just a nuisance,
> has already disturbed a few people, but I'm sure it will
> be a minor improvement for 90% of users who would otherwise
> scratch their heads over how to stop it without stopping
> other warnings at the same time.
Compartmentalise the warnings? Just off the top of my little head:
abort(x)
trace(x)
warning(x)
goto(s)
> Some people complained about speed, then discovered it
> was their mistake, or something weird in their setup.
Or using lots of code to do lots of things.
> Someone complained trace wasn't working, then realized it was
> his mistake.
>
> Startup time is an issue for people running large programs
> on old machines, but that will get steadily better as
> the front end is speeded up, and these old machines are
> gradually retired. Machine speed increases much faster
> over the years than average program size.
Gradually retired? You must have money some of us don't have. My neighbor
has cost me the price of 4 new computers. Real life bites, but must you
make it worse?
> The install program had a couple of people in hysterics
> because it changed one of their Euphoria file associations.
> They didn't realize you could just right click and set it
> back in a few seconds.
It's a minor thing, a bad taste in the mouth of each and every user, thinking
this shouldn't be. What if they all wrote in and said something,, you have ,,
umm,, 5000 users of Eu? Got emailbox space? Or what if they did like i did to
Network Solutions the 2nd time they had a trivial database
corruption, and showed up in their lobby?
> Some wisdom I've gained after doing this for many years
> is this:
> You can never satisfy the demand for new features by
> providing new features. You just make it worse!
> When you give people something new, the first thing
> they do is start asking for enhancements of what you've
> given them.
In the early 1980's, i was complaining, to no one in particular, about the lack
of some features in the Vic20 and C64. Since the C64 had more ready
options in hardware, i spent a couple months and doubled it's OS, poking in
machine code. Eating it's ram for that wasn't so bad, considering how i
paged the new OS code out of program space when the programs fired up.
When i was done, it's software was where i'd like Eu to be now, 20 years
later. I haven't had a pressing need to change anything since, altho i might
want to add a harddrive, since they aren't $200 per megabyte anymore.
> By giving people an open source Euphoria, they immediately
> starting demanding more openness, and more ways to use the
> open source, and they get upset when they can't have it
> right away.
>
> The people on this list who tend to be the most negative,
> also tend to be people who have been on this list for many
> years, and apparently have not found anything better
> to use than Euphoria in all that time.
That says something about how much potential we believe Eu has to
displace other programming languages, and how well we can think outside
those mass-marketted boxes. The people who have left apparently came to
the conclusion that you stopped thinking outside the box you sealed when
you first started Euphoria. I cannot imagine what's wrong with taking down all
those other languages by adding goto to Eu, making it a Lisp-y language
with one of the first reserved words ever in a high level language!
> Having said that, I must admit that it's negative
> comments that are more likely to push me into improving
> Euphoria. Too many positive comments and I might just
> crack open a beer and go watch a DVD for a couple of
> hours instead of trying to improve things.
And i'll drive up there and personally buy you a beer for this wish list:
1) add goto -- like other languages
2) include .il files -- <sigh> scrambled or not!
3) string execution -- like Bach
3a) pre"compiled" .il code for the strings possible?
4) access to the var table -- like mirc, or better!
5) things i forgot to mention here, because of real life stresses..
Kat
8. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
- Posted by mad-dog <mad-dog at rogers.com>
Nov 21, 2004
-
Last edited Nov 22, 2004
Ray Smith wrote:
>
>
>Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
>>The people on this list who tend to be the most negative,
>>also tend to be people who have been on this list for many
>>years, and apparently have not found anything better
>>to use than Euphoria in all that time.
>>
>>
>Many people who used to use Euphoria have moved on and found better
>languages.
>Like everything in life though ... nothing is perfect ;)
>
>Ray Smith
>http://rays-web.com
>
>
>
>
Which o\would that be?
9. Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Craig" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Eu 2.5 improvements over Eu 2.4
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> spent memory wrote:
>> Can someone list the major improvements of 2.5 over 2.4,
>
> http://www.rapideuphoria.com/relnotes.htm
>
>> after reading
>> many posts and looking through info i haven't found much reason to
>> install the 2.5 that's been sitting on my desktop for 2 days.
>
> Once people start using $ and crash_routine(), and posting
> that code to the Archive, you'll have to install 2.5.
Or not use the archives. I've done pretty well without 2.4 so far.
[Snip]
> Some people complained about speed, then discovered it
> was their mistake, or something weird in their setup.
BTW, Winwire is working after a reboot.
WinXP doesn't usually need a reboot. :(
[Snip]
> The install program had a couple of people in hysterics
> because it changed one of their Euphoria file associations.
> They didn't realize you could just right click and set it
> back in a few seconds.
I was and am well aware of a few clicks to set things back.
I shouldn't have to set them BACK. They shouldn't change.
I still haven't installed it on THIS computer because of those
changes.
> Some wisdom I've gained after doing this for many years
> is this:
> You can never satisfy the demand for new features by
> providing new features. You just make it worse!
> When you give people something new, the first thing
> they do is start asking for enhancements of what you've
> given them.
>
> By giving people an open source Euphoria, they immediately
> starting demanding more openness, and more ways to use the
> open source, and they get upset when they can't have it
> right away.
I haven't read much into the euphoria in euporia interpretter yet.
I will have plenty to learn from with it. I thank you for that.
I think ! After all, I'm not sure that I will take the time to go
through it. It runs, most of the time. I've been getting some
error about many of the DOS32 programs not being able to
run in this system or something like that. They run without going
through ex eu.ex but they don't run through ex eu.ex :(
> The people on this list who tend to be the most negative,
> also tend to be people who have been on this list for many
> years, and apparently have not found anything better
> to use than Euphoria in all that time.
>
> Having said that, I must admit that it's negative
> comments that are more likely to push me into improving
> Euphoria. Too many positive comments and I might just
> crack open a beer and go watch a DVD for a couple of
> hours instead of trying to improve things.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
