1. Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
- Posted by sixs <sixs at ida.net>
Nov 24, 2004
I hve read many of the emails that seem to be against RDS and the
status of the language. I have written many years in COBOL, Basic, and
languages before COBOL, as well as so called 4th Generation Languages.
Lots of GOTOs. I have written in Delphia and Visual Basic. What I want
to know is what is a hobby language.?
I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
Jim
2. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
sixs wrote:
> I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
> Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
3. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Well I thought so at first but after a couple of months I started to realize
the real strengths of this lang. It came to a head when the company I was
working at needed a new serial downloader that would run under OS/2. My boss
asked if
I could do something about it. With my Euphoria I had a new downloader runnign
in about
a week on the test station. i followed that up by writing a data recorder for an
automotive bus
system that had a visual screen that showd the subsystems in operation. It also
had the ability
to replay the data and alter it as well. Not all subsytems are part of the lang
but it was fairly
easy to find the pieces in the archive and modify those to do the job. Not to
bad for the price(abt $30.00)
That ame company sent the software to India when the project got outsourced.
4. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> sixs wrote:
>
> > I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
> > Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
>
> In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
>
> But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
It makes life a lot easier for people learning the language,
especially as a person learning to program the first time, because
they don't have to deal with 16 different constructs that seem very
similar at first.
People who have used the language for a long time, and have used other
languages, begin to realise that some of the simplicity in Euphoria
makes it hard to do things. For instance, constructs like continue,
try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
absent from Euphoria.
I understand that to add some new features to Euphoria would make it
immensely more powerful, but that it would make Euphoria more
difficult for new people to learn.
It's true that new features break none of the existing
functionality... but it does make it harder for people to learn the
language, even though they can write things exactly the same way,
because rather than choosing A or B to accomplish task N, they have to
choose between A, B, C, D, E, F, G!
For those of us who know the language already, it's not an issue.
Newbies will have a harder time of it though.
Rob's entire pitch is geared towards Newbies. Hell, right next to my
Gmail window I see this:
"Download Euphoria
A powerful programming language even a dummy can learn. By RDS.
www.rapideuphoria.com"
So yes, I'm afraid that Euphoria will remain a hobby language, because
that is RDS's target market right now.
I don't like this particularly, I'd like to see Euphoria suitable for
use in quite advanced applications... but unless there's a *business*
reason for Rob to do so, nothing will change.
What do y'all think of this? Is it a reasonably accurate explanation?
What can we do to change the target market?
--
MrTrick
5. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know
this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as
many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:25:57 +1100, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote:
> > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> >
> > sixs wrote:
> >
> > > I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
> > > Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
> >
> > In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
> >
> > But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
>
> Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
>
> It makes life a lot easier for people learning the language,
> especially as a person learning to program the first time, because
> they don't have to deal with 16 different constructs that seem very
> similar at first.
>
> People who have used the language for a long time, and have used other
> languages, begin to realise that some of the simplicity in Euphoria
> makes it hard to do things. For instance, constructs like continue,
> try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
> absent from Euphoria.
>
> I understand that to add some new features to Euphoria would make it
> immensely more powerful, but that it would make Euphoria more
> difficult for new people to learn.
>
> It's true that new features break none of the existing
> functionality... but it does make it harder for people to learn the
> language, even though they can write things exactly the same way,
> because rather than choosing A or B to accomplish task N, they have to
> choose between A, B, C, D, E, F, G!
>
> For those of us who know the language already, it's not an issue.
> Newbies will have a harder time of it though.
>
> Rob's entire pitch is geared towards Newbies. Hell, right next to my
> Gmail window I see this:
> "Download Euphoria
> A powerful programming language even a dummy can learn. By RDS.
> www.rapideuphoria.com"
>
> So yes, I'm afraid that Euphoria will remain a hobby language, because
> that is RDS's target market right now.
>
> I don't like this particularly, I'd like to see Euphoria suitable for
> use in quite advanced applications... but unless there's a *business*
> reason for Rob to do so, nothing will change.
>
> What do y'all think of this? Is it a reasonably accurate explanation?
> What can we do to change the target market?
> --
> MrTrick
>
>
6. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know
> this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
> marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as
> many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
Exactly!
So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
try and address the issues.
Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
--
MrTrick
7. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote:
> > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> > sixs wrote:
> > > I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
> > > Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
> > In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
> > But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
>
> Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else put
it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate on
the algorithm.
Besides, isn't that a primary gripe about other languages... that there
are too many ways to accomplish one task. That, to me, is inefficient.
> For instance, constructs like continue,
> try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
> absent from Euphoria.
I have never had need of try/catch, switch(), etc... (I'm not
saying, however, that I wouldn't use those things... just that I have
programmed this long without them and don't feel a pressing need for them.)
There have been some extensive and professional applications developed
with Euphoria. And how can a programming language be considered a toy
when it's used to serve up a website (or two)?! :)
> So yes, I'm afraid that Euphoria will remain a hobby language, because
> that is RDS's target market right now.
Look at this http://advancedmachinelearning.com/index.html and tell me
Euphoria is a hobby language.
A quick glance through the Archive tells me people are doing very cool
(and professional) things with Euphoria.
Maybe I set the bar too low for what I consider a "professional" language.
> What do y'all think of this? Is it a reasonably accurate explanation?
> What can we do to change the target market?
I suggest we get Euphoria into the classrooms, from highschool to
the university level.
Or, answer this question: Who builds tools for ruby, lua, python, etc? I'm
talking developer tools.
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
8. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
> paid for the language before finding out its shortcomings, so I'm not
> sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
It's a huge loss, not because they won't be buying an upgrade, but because
they'll not be recommending it. Best case, it will simply not be mentioned.
Worst case, they will badmouth Euphoria/RDS and keep others away.
I pray to God that Rob doesn't let any of them leave easily.
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
9. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:48:32 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > wrote:
> > > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> > > sixs wrote:
> > > > I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
> > > > Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
> > > In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
> > > But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
> >
> > Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> > in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
>
> How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else put
> it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate on
> the algorithm.
Well, implement a program that uses threads.
Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
many 3rd party libs.
> > For instance, constructs like continue,
> > try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
> > absent from Euphoria.
>
> I have never had need of try/catch, switch(), etc... (I'm not
> saying, however, that I wouldn't use those things... just that I have
> programmed this long without them and don't feel a pressing need for them.)
> There have been some extensive and professional applications developed
> with Euphoria. And how can a programming language be considered a toy
> when it's used to serve up a website (or two)?! :)
I quite agree with you - quite a few impressive accomplishments have
been implemented in Euphoria. I think some of them could have been
even better if their authors didn't have to work around weaknesses of
Euphoria.
> > What do y'all think of this? Is it a reasonably accurate explanation?
> > What can we do to change the target market?
>
> I suggest we get Euphoria into the classrooms, from highschool to
> the university level.
That's a very good idea.
> Or, answer this question: Who builds tools for ruby, lua, python, etc? I'm
> talking developer tools.
That's another weakness in Euphoria. Not that it's necissarily Rob's
fault, but even the largest developer tool in Euphoria, IDE, is full
of bugs.
I'd love to see a serious text-based IDE... I've been using Eclipse by
IBM for some Java development at work, and it kicks the pants off of
every other IDE I've ever seen, even VC++.
--
MrTrick
10. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:48:32 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote:
> > Patrick Barnes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> > > > But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
> > > Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> > > in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
> > How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else put
> > it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate on
> > the algorithm.
>
> Well, implement a program that uses threads.
Can you provide the name of a few programs that use threads? I doubt any
program on my PC uses threads... from Quicken to UltraEdit to Firefox to...
well, maybe Firefox.
I suspect that less than 5% of all computer programs on personal or
business PCs use threads. Am I close? :)
> Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
That would seem to be a complicated thing to pull off... or no?
What language can do that? Isn't it just a matter of somebody coming up
with a way to do that?
> Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
?
> Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
Is that a reference to structures? I can see how that would benefit
Euphoria.
> Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
> many 3rd party libs.
I can perceive that as a problem; I'm fortunate it's never affected me.
> > Or, answer this question: Who builds tools for ruby, lua, python, etc? I'm
> > talking developer tools.
>
> That's another weakness in Euphoria. Not that it's necissarily Rob's
> fault, but even the largest developer tool in Euphoria, IDE, is full
> of bugs.
Well, get on it! :P
> I'd love to see a serious text-based IDE... I've been using Eclipse by
> IBM for some Java development at work, and it kicks the pants off of
> every other IDE I've ever seen, even VC++.
I'm gonna hafta check that out. A text-based IDE. Sounds doable! :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
11. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:25:51 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > Well, implement a program that uses threads.
>
> Can you provide the name of a few programs that use threads? I doubt any
> program on my PC uses threads... from Quicken to UltraEdit to Firefox to...
> well, maybe Firefox.
Well, the contest v2 will. GUI process, Engine process, and one
process per entry.
It's the easiest way to do things...
They're implemented as different programs per thread.
> I suspect that less than 5% of all computer programs on personal or
> business PCs use threads. Am I close? :)
Hmm... I don't know. A lot of things could benefit from possible
concurrent operation.
> > Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
>
> That would seem to be a complicated thing to pull off... or no?
> What language can do that? Isn't it just a matter of somebody coming up
> with a way to do that?
Well, that's the whole idea of a DLL. We can call C dll's from
Euphoria, but we need to "dumbdown" the interface to C's primitive
types.
> > Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
>
> ?
One thing I'd *LOVE* to see in Euphoria is better loop-control...
continue: Stop executing inside the loop, start the next loop. Can be
done with lots of if statements, but it's ugly.
exitN/continueN: break out of N loops, or continue the next N
loop.Can't be done in Euphoria currently unless we use flags, and it's
much slower than native. As some have suggested, this might be better
implemented with a named loop approach.
> > Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
>
> Is that a reference to structures? I can see how that would benefit
> Euphoria.
Yes, it's a reference to structures.
Despite Euphoria's dynamic sequences, almost all of the global
sequences in large programs are used as structures. That is, every
top-level element follows the same rules.
Being *able* to restrict the dynamicism would make development much
easier, as well as simplifying validation.
> > Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
> > many 3rd party libs.
>
> I can perceive that as a problem; I'm fortunate it's never affected me.
There's been a few people with problems... but no responce at all from Rob.
> > Or, answer this question: Who builds tools for ruby, lua, python, etc? I'm
> > > talking developer tools.
> >
> > That's another weakness in Euphoria. Not that it's necissarily Rob's
> > fault, but even the largest developer tool in Euphoria, IDE, is full
> > of bugs.
>
> Well, get on it! :P
>
> > I'd love to see a serious text-based IDE... I've been using Eclipse by
> > IBM for some Java development at work, and it kicks the pants off of
> > every other IDE I've ever seen, even VC++.
>
> I'm gonna hafta check that out. A text-based IDE. Sounds doable! :)
Indeed. Check eclipse out if you get the time. 
-
MrTrick
12. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On 24 Nov 2004, at 16:25, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote: >
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> > > sixs wrote: > > > I looked at
> LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought > > Euphoria was
> the
> best pick. Was I wrong? > > In my opinion, no. In my experience, no. > > But
> then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
>
> Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
>
> It makes life a lot easier for people learning the language,
> especially as a person learning to program the first time, because
> they don't have to deal with 16 different constructs that seem very
> similar at first.
>
> People who have used the language for a long time, and have used other
> languages, begin to realise that some of the simplicity in Euphoria
> makes it hard to do things. For instance, constructs like continue,
> try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
> absent from Euphoria.
>
> I understand that to add some new features to Euphoria would make it
> immensely more powerful, but that it would make Euphoria more
> difficult for new people to learn.
>
> It's true that new features break none of the existing
> functionality... but it does make it harder for people to learn the
> language, even though they can write things exactly the same way,
> because rather than choosing A or B to accomplish task N, they have to
> choose between A, B, C, D, E, F, G!
>
> For those of us who know the language already, it's not an issue.
> Newbies will have a harder time of it though.
>
> Rob's entire pitch is geared towards Newbies. Hell, right next to my
> Gmail window I see this:
> "Download Euphoria
> A powerful programming language even a dummy can learn. By RDS.
> www.rapideuphoria.com"
>
> So yes, I'm afraid that Euphoria will remain a hobby language, because
> that is RDS's target market right now.
>
> I don't like this particularly, I'd like to see Euphoria suitable for
> use in quite advanced applications... but unless there's a *business*
> reason for Rob to do so, nothing will change.
>
>
> What do y'all think of this? Is it a reasonably accurate explanation?
> What can we do to change the target market?
Rather good, but you forgot the Vision RobC Had,, err, had. Eu cannot be
like other languages in the least, period. Good thing Karl didn't have that
problem!
Kat
13. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On 24 Nov 2004, at 16:39, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know >
> this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a >
> marketing
> perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as > many markets as
> possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
>
> Exactly!
>
> So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
> try and address the issues.
>
> Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
> paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
> sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
I'm not putting more money into Eu till i see what the point of .il was, in
terms of how it gets me string execution, how we can include it for faster
startup, and a frontend that knows how to goto.
Kat
14. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On 23 Nov 2004, at 22:25, cklester wrote:
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
<snip>
> > Well, implement a program that uses threads.
>
> Can you provide the name of a few programs that use threads? I doubt any
> program on my PC uses threads... from Quicken to UltraEdit to Firefox to...
> well, maybe Firefox.
( These thread counts are in addition to the main )
IDLE (it's a loop) - 1 thread
KERNAL32.dll -- 3 threads
MSGSERV32.dll -- 1 thread
MPREXE.EXE -- 1 thread
EXPLORER.EXE -- 3 threads <<-- x3
SYSTRAY -- 1 thread
LOADWC.exe -- 10 threads
PROX---- 2 threads
Dunce -- 1 thread
firewall -- 4 threads
Pegasus -- 2 threads
mirc -- 1 thread
tapi -- 1 thread
EXW40.exe -- 1 thread <<-- x4
WINOA386 -- 1 thread
SPOOL32 -- 1 thread
IEXPLORER -- 5 threads <<-- x6
DDHELP -- 1 thread
textpad -- 1 thread
Kat
15. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
cklester wrote:
>
> Can you provide the name of a few programs that use threads? I doubt any
> program on my PC uses threads... from Quicken to UltraEdit to Firefox to...
> well, maybe Firefox.
>
> I suspect that less than 5% of all computer programs on personal or
> business PCs use threads. Am I close? :)
If you are running windows, many of the system programs use threads.
For example explorer.exe. The windows version of eu actually uses threads.
It has two threads running, but I do not know the reason. Most games use
threads. Proper syncronization is dead impossible without threads.
Without threads, one cannot use the full power of multi-processor,
p4 ht-processors and modern amd processors. If you've got a webserver
and you're running apache, it actually uses 200 threads by default.
Or, should I say, threads are very common in bigger projects.
> > Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
>
> That would seem to be a complicated thing to pull off... or no?
> What language can do that? Isn't it just a matter of somebody coming up
> with a way to do that?
VERY useful in bigger projects. Yes, workarounds can be done, but they
aren't as good as it could be.
> > Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
>
> ?
/Lex
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
16. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
cklester wrote:
> > Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
>
> ?
>
Replace:
integer flag
flag = 0
for a = 1 to 10 do
for b = 1 to 10 do
if b = 5 then flag = 1 exit end if
end for
if flag then exit end if
end for
With a better way of doing it.
/Lex
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
17. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:29:58 -0800, Alexander Toresson
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> posted by: Alexander Toresson <toressonodakra at swipnet.se>
>
> cklester wrote:
> > > Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
> > ?
>
> Replace:
>
> integer flag
>
> flag = 0
>
> for a = 1 to 10 do
> for b = 1 to 10 do
> if b = 5 then flag = 1 exit end if
> end for
> if flag then exit end if
> end for
>
> With a better way of doing it.
Exactly. The work-around is much slower (because it has to run the if
statement each iteration), and needs an extra variable.
I think the best and simple enhancement would be to allow this:
for a = 1 to 10 do
for b = 1 to 10 do
if b = 5 then
exit a --exit the for loop that uses 'a'
end if
end for
end for
or for while loops:
while 1 as a do --(as a is optional)
for b = 1 to length(somevar) do
if not somevar[b] then
exit a
end if
end for
end while
--
MrTrick
18. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
I have to agree that in principle Euphoria seems very much a hobby language, but
when there are extra libraries like win32lib, etc, the very same language can be
used for much more. I guess that it will never have as strong a following as
C,C++,Java,others!, but I for one, have managed to do many things with it that
otherwise would have been laborious in the other languages (of which I am well
aware of). The main advantage, to me, of Euphoria seems to be the RAD aspect. I
can knock up a quick windows app to do something very, very quickly and debugging
takes a minimal amount of time. No Compilation, Linking, etc.
We're about to release a small commercial app (see <a
href='http://www.purpletiger.com?pageid=sequential'>SeQuentiaL</a>) and another
larger commercial bespoke tool (for Marina Management) in another month. Neither
of these are particularly 'Thread' intensive, or requiring superb code constructs
and could easily have been created using C, C++, or whatever, but we chose to use
Euphoria because of the savings in time and energy while developing.
Basically it CAN be used for commercial stuff, but only if people stop moaning
about ALL the things it's missing and concentrate on what it DOES provide :)
Hey, I also miss OO aspects, cases, structs, pass-by-reference, etc, but I can
get around them with lateral thinking. :)
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
Server-Side DB driven web sites,
Software Development (often with Euphoria!!!)
and part-time games developer
contact dave_p at purpletiger dot com
. .. : :: = == == = :: : .. .
19. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:02:01 -0800, Dave Probert
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
can knock up a >quick windows app to do something very, very quickly
and debugging takes a minimal >amount of time. No Compilation,
Linking, etc.
Yes, exactly. I wrote a translation script (break a file up, send it
piece by piece through an online translation service, reassemble
translated fragments) in Euphoria in about 2 hours. In any other
language, it would have taken weeks.
> Basically it CAN be used for commercial stuff, but only if people stop moaning
> about ALL the things it's missing and concentrate on what it DOES provide :)
> Hey, I also miss OO aspects, cases, structs, pass-by-reference, etc, but I can
> get around them with lateral thinking. :)
Well....
That's just it. Yes, you can create work-arounds for the bits that
euphoria is missing, but all the hacking and kludging kinda opposes
the RAD spirit, doesn't it?
*That's* why Euphoria needs to be enhanced occasionally... to keep up
with the whole idea of a RAD paradigm.
--
MrTrick
20. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know
> > this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
> > marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as
> > many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
>
> Exactly!
>
> So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
> try and address the issues.
Are you sure they are leaving Euphoria itself, but not this list only?
I think, there is some latent using of Euphoria now, say, for competition
at work or such.
This list is about 500 members, some of them do not talking about any
things at all.
There are about 30000 downloaders of PD Euphoria 2.3 and 2.4 on
download.com.
I had written some custom program on 35000 or so Euphoria operators in v2.1
PD Euphoria with 300 operators limit(!!!). That program was translated
by hands from QB4.5 and had many powerful Euphoria improvements,
impossible in QB4.5, PDS7.1. VB1.
It was not a Hobby program.
It was just impossible on MS professional expensive products.
MS products have nothing to do on Linux, not only on DOS32.
Do ever one person of this list know about my programs before 2001?
Now new v.2.5 PD has NO limitations at all, and just sturtup microdelay
for the compiled by the best Open Watcom C compiler Euphoria program.
But this list has some new members now, who wants to teach RDS
and Rob Craig how to program Euphoria itself.
Ok, what a problem, teach, download PD Source Code and teach.
Rob is ready listen to you about *you concrete code*.
Do not want to teach?
Ok, learn how to make the World famous things.
So, if you want to be constructive, you have all ways to be constructive.
But if you are waiting that programming itself is simple thing,
this is your mistake, sorry.
Programming itself never was and is not and never will be simple.
Euphoria programming language is just one of the simplest among
other programing languages. But more powerful than most of them.
> Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
> paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
> sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
Nothing strange or funny, I think.
If you wanted just $-feature, but know now that there is some extremly
powerful
Euphoria IL-engine too, you want this engine too and for free.
Euphoria is for End Users, who wants a simple, robust and powerful
language.
And Euphoria is a simple, robust and powerful language.
Shoot me boys, it is truth.
And do not mix and confuse market questions with programming questions.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
21. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:07:59 -0800, cklester wrote:
>>
>> sixs wrote:
>>
>>> I looked at LUA,REBOL, Ruby, and CAml as well as some others. I thought
>>> Euphoria was the best pick. Was I wrong?
>>
>> In my opinion, no. In my experience, no.
>>
>> But then, I don't have a CS degree, so what do I know? ;)
>
> Euphoria's biggest flaw is that sometimes you are forced to do things
> in a slow way, because there are limited ways to accomplish task N.
>
> It makes life a lot easier for people learning the language,
> especially as a person learning to program the first time, because
> they don't have to deal with 16 different constructs that seem very
> similar at first.
>
> People who have used the language for a long time, and have used other
> languages, begin to realise that some of the simplicity in Euphoria
> makes it hard to do things. For instance, constructs like continue,
> try/catch, switch(), pointers, structs, unions, OO, are completely
> absent from Euphoria.
>
> I understand that to add some new features to Euphoria would make it
> immensely more powerful, but that it would make Euphoria more
> difficult for new people to learn.
Adding new features would *not necessarily* make Euphoria more
difficult for new people to learn. If would depend on the features,
and on the way they are implemented.
> It's true that new features break none of the existing
> functionality... but it does make it harder for people to learn the
> language, even though they can write things exactly the same way,
> because rather than choosing A or B to accomplish task N, they have to
> choose between A, B, C, D, E, F, G!
>
> For those of us who know the language already, it's not an issue.
It depends on what "new features" you mean. Quoting from
'Euphoria\doc\c.doc':
"... your C/C++ package has 57 different routines for memory allocation,
and 67 different routines for manipulating strings and blocks of memory."
Things like that are not desirable at all. On the other hand, things
like the new crash_routine() procedure provide significant benefit for
everyone, and don't confuse anyone.
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
22. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Igor Kachan wrote:
>
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know
> > > this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
> > > marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as
> > > many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
> > try and address the issues.
>
> Are you sure they are leaving Euphoria itself, but not this list only?
> I think, there is some latent using of Euphoria now, say, for competition
> at work or such.
>
> This list is about 500 members, some of them do not talking about any
> things at all.
If this list really has 500 members, 90% doesn't post. And I don't think
that most of them are just reading what others post. Most of them are
probably *inactive*. Anyway, where did you get that count from?
> There are about 30000 downloaders of PD Euphoria 2.3 and 2.4 on
> download.com.
50% didn't understand what it was or how to use it. 50% of those who did
understand what it was didn't like it. That leaves 7500. That's not much
for a programming language which has been around for over ten years,
even if everybody who downloaded it actually uses it.
> I had written some custom program on 35000 or so Euphoria operators in v2.1
> PD Euphoria with 300 operators limit(!!!). That program was translated
> by hands from QB4.5 and had many powerful Euphoria improvements,
> impossible in QB4.5, PDS7.1. VB1.
> It was not a Hobby program.
> It was just impossible on MS professional expensive products.
> MS products have nothing to do on Linux, not only on DOS32.
You're comparing euphoria to shit. Compare Euphoria with the usability of
c++, vb.net etc, and you'll a completely different picture. Euphoria needs
to *develop* to compete with those languages, and I don't mean 1 update/
year with a few new features and/or features moved from the complete
to the free edition.
> Do ever one person of this list know about my programs before 2001?
No, we don't, though I don't understand how it would make any difference
knowing about them.
> Now new v.2.5 PD has NO limitations at all, and just sturtup microdelay
> for the compiled by the best Open Watcom C compiler Euphoria program.
I do not care about the free version of euphoria. I own the complete
edition. The complete edition is what should be used when comparing.
*Startup microdelay*? Do you own a supercomputer?
> But this list has some new members now, who wants to teach RDS
> and Rob Craig how to program Euphoria itself.
>
> Ok, what a problem, teach, download PD Source Code and teach.
> Rob is ready listen to you about *you concrete code*.
>
> Do not want to teach?
> Ok, learn how to make the World famous things.
We don't want to teach him to program in Euphoria. We want to show him
what features should be adequate in Euphoria. Euphoria seriously needs
some features to be a language that more experienced programmers also
can use.
Here's a list of improvements in eu that would be needed, which
Patrick Barnes posted today:
>> How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else put
>> it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate on
>> the algorithm.
>
>Well, implement a program that uses threads.
>Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
>Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
>Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
>Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
>many 3rd party libs.
> So, if you want to be constructive, you have all ways to be constructive.
We have been constructive all the time, but he just doesn't listen to us.
> But if you are waiting that programming itself is simple thing,
> this is your mistake, sorry.
> Programming itself never was and is not and never will be simple.
> Euphoria programming language is just one of the simplest among
> other programing languages. But more powerful than most of them.
Who said it is easy?
> > Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
> > paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
> > sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
>
> Nothing strange or funny, I think.
> If you wanted just $-feature, but know now that there is some extremly
> powerful
> Euphoria IL-engine too, you want this engine too and for free.
>
> Euphoria is for End Users, who wants a simple, robust and powerful
> language.
> And Euphoria is a simple, robust and powerful language.
> Shoot me boys, it is truth.
> And do not mix and confuse market questions with programming questions.
>
You do really just repeat what was told you by the documentation.
And you didn't comment what he said, you just added talk of no
importance. Why are most advanced users leaving euphoria?
/Lex
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
23. Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Alexander Toresson wrote:
>Igor Kachan wrote:
>
>> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i
know
>> > > this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
>> > > marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for
as
>> > > many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
>> >
>> > Exactly!
>> >
>> > So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
>> > try and address the issues.
>>
>> Are you sure they are leaving Euphoria itself, but not this list only?
>> I think, there is some latent using of Euphoria now, say, for
competition
>> at work or such.
>>
>> This list is about 500 members, some of them do not talking about any
>> things at all.
>If this list really has 500 members, 90% doesn't post. And I don't think
>that most of them are just reading what others post. Most of them are
>probably *inactive*. Anyway, where did you get that count from?
>From EU 2.5 docs. You can check it on Topica.
I just know it is a real count.
Pre-Topica listserver sent this count about each your post.
Those days, it was 350..400 or so members.
Then Chris Bensler found this Topica for us and went away.
Now he makes noise here again about his market projects
and dreams.
BTW, Rob, it was the very useful feature of old good listserver.
>> There are about 30000 downloaders of PD Euphoria 2.3 and 2.4 on
>> download.com.
>50% didn't understand what it was or how to use it.
>From where is this your count?
I do not think 50% of downloaders may be so silly to download
all they see from Internet.
One or two of 30000, maybe, I just do not know.
>50% of those who did understand what it was didn't like it.
>From where is this your count?
I do not think 50% of 30000 .. 29999 .. 29998 programmers may
be so silly to can not run setup program and read readme.doc
file.
My count is 30000 .. 29998 downloaders do understand what
Euphoria is.
>That leaves 7500. That's not much
>for a programming language which has been around for over ten years,
>even if everybody who downloaded it actually uses it.
My count is about 30000 just from download.com on 2.3 and 2.4 versions.
It is based on download.com data. And I think, all dowloaders are
the clever boys/girls/old guys.
Plus official 2.2, 2.1, 2.0, 1.5a, 1.5, 1.4b, 1.4a, 1.4, 1.3, 1.2b,
1.2a, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0.
Plus alpha/beta versions on 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
My count is about 20 versions of Euphoria programming language.
2.5 alpha is 21-st.
Plus clons - Karl's, Matt's, ruphoria, nuphoria.
BTW, if someone has 1.5, 1.4a, 1.3b, 1.2a, 1.2 let me know please,
I'd like to get them.
>> I had written some custom program on 35000 or so Euphoria operators in
v2.1
>> PD Euphoria with 300 operators limit(!!!). That program was translated
>> by hands from QB4.5 and had many powerful Euphoria improvements,
>> impossible in QB4.5, PDS7.1. VB1.
>> It was not a Hobby program.
>> It was just impossible on MS professional expensive products.
>> MS products have nothing to do on Linux, not only on DOS32.
>You're comparing euphoria to shit.
QuickBasic 4.5 never was, is not and never will be "shit", as you say.
It is just the best Basic programming language for DOS.
It costs $100 or so.
PDS7.1 is stands for Professional Development System 7.1,
QuickBasic 7.1, so to say. Visual Basic 1 is single VB for
DOS platform, based on PDS7.1 system.
All these products are good, professional, but expensive.
Plus MS doesn't support them for a while.
Plus they are monoplatform.
No one programming language is "shit", remember, please.
There are poorly experienced programmers in the World, yes.
>Compare Euphoria with the usability of
>c++, vb.net etc, and you'll a completely different picture.
MS c++ and vb.net can not ever compete with Euphoria,
they are monoplatform.
Another (lower) class of programming languages.
Then, all questions about usability are the market/bazaar
questions. These questions have nothing to do about real
quality of a programming language.
Catch market/bazaar and you'll be the "best".
Take for example PowerBASIC, it is much better than VB.
But PowerBASIC's mailing list's archive - about 100000
messages. Euphoria's list - about 65000.
But PowerBASIC came from TurboBasic, i.e. from 1985 or so.
>Euphoria needs to *develop* to compete with those languages,
>and I don't mean 1 update/year with a few new features and/or
>features moved from the complete to the free edition.
Can you even calculate, Lex? 
My count is 21 versios on 11 years, from 1 to 4 platforms,
from pure interpreted DOS to compiled with 7 free compilers
DOS32, WIN32, Linux, FreeBSD --> just Rob and Junko.
BTW, not too bad, Rob and Junko, many thanks
from Russian boys & girls & old guys!
Then, you wanted 2.4 CE? Yes?
Any one can get 2.4 CE main features for free now.
It is the very good progress, I think.
Another thing, our appetite grows in front of a rich table.
I do see, some of this list members have the very good appetite.
>> Do ever one person of this list know about my programs before 2001?
>No, we don't, though I don't understand how it would make any
>difference knowing about them.
Sorry, just some my little experience I can provide to list.
Nothing more, sorry, please.
>> Now new v.2.5 PD has NO limitations at all, and just sturtup microdelay
>> for the compiled by the best Open Watcom C compiler Euphoria program.
>I do not care about the free version of euphoria. I own the complete
>edition.
So what? I care about free versions of Euphoria for my friends and me.
There was, is and will be nothing to do in Euphoria without PD versions.
>The complete edition is what should be used when comparing.
There is no complete edition at all in 2.5.
There are some additional strongly and highly professional
RDS products - safe encripted binder, C source code etc.
We have nothing to compare at all.
Extremely compact and powerfull PD Euphoria IL-engine has
no analogs in the World now, as far as I can see.
>*Startup microdelay*? Do you own a supercomputer?
No, my main PC is P166MMX, 64M RAM, same as Don Cole's one,
and I have P4 1.8GHz 256M RAM too, same as Rob's one,
then two P200 machines plus 386 25MHz 8M RAM mainframe
for testing my programs.
Startup microdelay - it is the delay before start
of the translated to C and compiled with C compiler
Euphoria program. PD translator sets this microdelay up,
it is not a parsing time.
You can not avoid parsing when you develop program.
>> But this list has some new members now, who wants to teach RDS
>> and Rob Craig how to program Euphoria itself.
>>
>> Ok, what a problem, teach, download PD Source Code and teach.
>> Rob is ready listen to you about *you concrete code*.
>>
>> Do not want to teach?
>> Ok, learn how to make the World famous things.
>We don't want to teach him to program in Euphoria.
Why not? Who "we"?
> We want to show him what features should be adequate in Euphoria.
Again, who "we"?
So, you want to teach him how to program *Euphoria itself* ?
See, please, above my text about *Euphoria itself*.
Not *in Euphoria*, but *Euphoria itself*, yes ?
Ok, no problem, set up v2.5, see SOURCE folder, use, teach, learn.
>Euphoria seriously needs some features to be a language that
>more experienced programmers also can use.
The more experienced programmer will use Windows API,
Linux system calls, DOS interrupts, assembly blocks,
etc etc etc using existent Euphoria features.
>Here's a list of improvements in eu that would be needed, which
>Patrick Barnes posted today:
>>> How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else
put
>>> it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate
on
>>> the algorithm.
>>
>>Well, implement a program that uses threads.
There is Euphoria game, Language War, it comes with
threads from EU 1.0.
Now it is 10 or so threads (parallel tasks).
No one uses the ready Euphoria threads technique, why?
I asked this questions years ago. No answer.
Let us see your concrete task for these threads.
Why no one asks for fibres?
>>>Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions
>>>within those plugins.
See Judith's question about plugins to this list
and list's answers.
>>>Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
How many levels and what is critical slowdown ?
>>>Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
Just try to assign illegal values to Euphoria sequence
and see your results. And I'd like to see your face in
front of your monitor.
>>>Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
>>>many 3rd party libs.
What is that large project and where are these many 3rd party libs?
>> So, if you want to be constructive, you have all ways to be
constructive.
>We have been constructive all the time, but he just doesn't listen to us.
Who "we", again? Chris Bensler and you?
>> But if you are waiting that programming itself is simple thing,
>> this is your mistake, sorry.
>> Programming itself never was and is not and never will be simple.
>> Euphoria programming language is just one of the simplest among
>> other programing languages. But more powerful than most of them.
>Who said it is easy?
Sometime someone a new boy/girl *waits* for an easy/peasy programming
here, but do not know how to just restart his/her puter.
New puters have no the Reset button -- big progress in front of
our faces.
>>> Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
>>> paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
>>> sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
>>
>> Nothing strange or funny, I think.
>> If you wanted just $-feature, but know now that there is some extremly
>> powerful
>> Euphoria IL-engine too, you want this engine too and for free.
>>
>> Euphoria is for End Users, who wants a simple, robust and powerful
>> language.
>> And Euphoria is a simple, robust and powerful language.
>> Shoot me boys, it is truth.
>> And do not mix and confuse market questions with programming questions.
>You do really just repeat what was told you by the documentation.
Ok, ok, but first of all try to find my words in documentation,
and then say these your things, if you'll find my words there.
>And you didn't comment what he said, you just added talk of no
>importance. Why are most advanced users leaving euphoria?
Who says most advanced users are leaving Euphoria?
I see some of list members are going away *from this list*
and handover some popular libs to other supporters.
All I can say - Good Luck and happy to all them!
Some of them say that list is too noisy about some
rubbish whithout relation to real Euphoria quality now.
I agreed, list is too noisy now.
It is all I see.
And I just have nothing to comment about "poor" Euphoria
and "poor" most advanced users, sorry.
I never see even one poor Euphoria user.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
