1. RE: The Euphorian Way
president at insight-concepts.com wrote:
> Hello SR,
>
> You Wrote:
>
> Additionally, I think those main contributors should be allowed the
> Eu C-source if they want it. They've proven their worth. Make them
> sign a NDA and a non-compete agreement, and hand it over if they
> think they can do something good with it.
>
> ---------------------------My Thoughts------------------------------
>
> That could be certain death for RDS.
I seriously doubt this. First of all, Rob has already stated that he
intends to release parts of the source to anyone that registers. He
won't release all of it.
Second of all, several of the people working on these libraries have
already proven themselves, IMO, to be completely trustworthy. David Cuny
in particular has abided by Rob's wishes on some other projects. I don't
know how long you're followed this list, but I think anyone that's
followed it for any length of time that believes David couldn't be
trusted to abide by an NDA and non-compete agreement would have to be
certified insane. Paranoid.
> If RDS gave away their source, or even parts of it, without a serious
> binding license agreement and/or a source code protection contract,
> they might as well make Euphoria freeware.
And which part of an NDA and non-compete agreement doesn't meet "serious
binding license agreement and/or a source code protection contract?"
2. RE: The Euphorian Way
Hello SR.Williamson,
>But one of the primary dreams of OOP was to enable code re-use, no
>matter if you're writing accounting, GUIs, games, simulations
>(especially useful for simulations). I think the Eu includes work BETTER in
>some ways for code re-use, but some things they just don't get at.
>
>For example, I cut my simulation teeth on a traffic simulator in school,
>written in something called SLAM-II. This was even before C++, back in the
>80s. But you could define an object ( a car or a redlight, for example)
>that would have specific attributes. But you couldn't change just one
>attribute ( e.g. make all lights have a minimum red of 1 minute) and have
>it filter to all lights. You had to change each one by hand. Fine for the
>academic exercise, since we only had to simulate 3
>lights. But for a real simulation, with maybe 100 or more, it would be
>exhausting.
>
>In C++, I can make that change. In Eu, AFAIK, I have to do it by hand
>again, though I suspect there might be a way to avoid that if you're
>clever.
There is if you use LOOP lib: my Euphoria OOP library. It doesn't
take too much cleverness either. :) When you create a property or
assign an already created property to a new class, you are required
to provide a default value. You supply the value that you think
would be the most common for that particular class. An example:
constant TrafficLight = NewClass(0) -- 0 means now superclass
constant MinRedTime = NewProp( 60 ) -- seconds
Now all objects created of the class "TrafficLight" have the default value
of 60 in their 'MinRedTime' property unless you change it.
Other convieniences of LOOP include:
changing property values at object-creation-time
Setting more than 1 property at a time;
Getting more than 1 property at a time.
later,
Lewis Townsend
3. RE: The Euphorian Way
I think I tried LOOP once before when I tested all the OOP libraries.
I'll give them all another go now that we've upgraded our computers
here. Before the libraries weren't fast enough to be of use to me, but
maybe the processor can make up for it. Big difference between a 500 MHz
and 90 MHz.
4. RE: The Euphorian Way
Excellent news Rob.
This should really give Euphoria a shot in the arm!
Now everyone who "really really" wants there features
can do it themselves! And if it's good enought (and accepted by
most people) can be merged back into the master source!
Can't wait to see Mr Cuny's version!
Ray Smith
Robert Craig wrote:
[snip]
> Naturally, if you make your own version, you must
> clearly state that you used our source, modified it,
> and RDS is not responsible for any damage.
>
> RDS will try to merge back into its version, any features
> or ports that we think are worthwhile, and that are released
> to us by the developer.
>
> Unlike "Open Source", you will not be permitted to redistribute
> our source code in any way. On the other hand, you will be
> permitted to make changes and additions without
> having to reveal your source, and you are free to sell
> or give away copies of your version. Your version will not
> be worth much, unless you add a feature, or port it, since you
> will only be able to build the free Public Domain Edition for
> Windows, DOS or Linux.
>
> This will be great news for Euphoria users.
> It should stimulate a lot of creativity and porting.
> The value of learning Euphoria will increase,
> since there will be more that you can do with it,
> and more suppliers of Euphoria-based solutions.
> (Most of) the source will be in the hands of numerous
> people, many of which will have some idea of
> how to maintain it. RDS will get suggestions
> for improvement, and sometimes complete bug fixes,
> based on the source code itself.
>
> So now we'll have 17 different, slightly-incompatible
> versions of Euphoria. True, but RDS will likely
> always have the accepted "standard" version.
> I suspect most people will buy the source just
> for educational reasons, not to try to come out with
> their own version.
> It would take a lot of work for someone to surpass RDS.
> They would have to develop something a lot better
> than what RDS has, and they'd probably be better
> off selling it to us, than trying to market it on their own.
>
> Our income will increase due to sales of the source.
> The demand for our current Complete Editions
> will not drop, since we would still be the only
> ones supplying those extra features.
>
> For more details you'll have to wait for 2.3.
> I have to get back to work on "namespace".
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
>
Ray Smith
http;//www.geocities.com/ray_223
5. RE: The Euphorian Way
Hi,
How is this different to people writting include libraries now?
The actual Euphoria libraries are the things that make Euphoria
what it is.
Where would Euphoria be without Win32Lib and the other half dozen
most popular libraries?
I agree Euphoria is a nice language but it still lacks a fair bit
with regard to connecting with other technologies. A lot of
libraries and tools have been developed but most are half done, badly
documented and largely untested.
OOP support would need to be added before Euphoria gained any
mainstream support and more "commercial quality" libraries are
required. This largely would require the current libraries to be
brushed up and a few more added. (A huge amount of work by the way).
Others have been critical of my "commercialism" comments in the past
but persoanlly I see no other way that Euphoria could match any of the
commercial or popular open source alternatives. Note that the
popular open source languages are backed commercially!
Anyway ... keep on Euphorian!
Ray Smith
> Euphoria isn't very popular. This is despite it's ease of use, it's
> simplicity,
> and it configurability. The precise reason for this is because Euphoria
> currently doesn't have what it takes to be popular. Two types of
> languages
> tend to be popular: those w/ great commercial backing by powerful
> companies
> who invest millions of dollors in the language and those which are
> open-source
> and supported by hundreds (or thousands) of developers. It is possible
> that
> RDS will become a great company and Euphoria will be supported in this
> multi-million dollor system, or that some other company will take over
> Euphoria
> and make it great. However, that would be the end of the great Euphorian
> community. The other way would be for RDS to make Euphoria open-source,
> while this could benifit the Euphorian community, it would be the death
> of
> RDS. The best approach, as I see it, would be for not RDS, or some other
> company, or some outside, but for the Euphorian community to come
> together
> and add enhancements to Euphoria outside of the control of RDS. For
> example:
> supposing the enhanced Eu was called Eu+, preprocessors written in Eu
> (or Eu+)
> to add stuff such as "def..end def", "select case", "object x = 0", etc.
> Then, an alternate include library for Eu+. Possibly even psuedo-coded
> Eu,
> which would be translated (in a secret way) to normal Eu, although that
> would
> be hard to do in an open community (aside from normal Eu having that
> already
> as shrounding). The heart of Eu+ would be the euphoria interpreter, but
> Eu+ preprocessors and special Eu+ librarys (both written in Eu or Eu+)
> would allow Euphoria to gain popularity and be developed by hundreds of
> people
> (like the open-source languages) while letting RDS still control the
> heart of
> it. As long as RDS still has a unlimited usage free version (i.e. a
> trial
> version that never expires), Euphoria can emulate the open-source w/ out
> being open-source.
>
>
> --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--
>
>
Ray Smith
http;//www.geocities.com/ray_223
6. RE: The Euphorian Way
Hi,
> Ignoring what I said about preprocessors, most of the libriaries are not
> only poorly developed (Win32Lib being the most useful exception), and
> there is very little orginazation with them. The best libraries should
> be standardized to together so a user doesn't have to look for them.
Isn't someone doing a Win32 Install with Win32lib and the IDE?
I guess as well as some other choice libraries or add-ons?
I agree totally with what you say ... a new user would need to do
alot of reading / research / downloading and evaluating before they can
really get started.
> True, but many have already written libraries and preprocessors
> that emulate OOP for Euphoria. Also, most of the preprocessors
> (and all of the libraries) support "old-stlye" eu.
Personally I haven't played with OOP programming techniques much and
my comment was really pointed at "How others percieve Euphoria".
How many "new and improved" languages have you heard of in the last
decade that didn't support some kind of OOP techniques?
I think the namespace changes comming soon will help in this area but
I beleive Euphoria is still suited to the smaller sized applications.
I really don't have a whole lot of proof to back that up ... it's more
of a feeling I get from what others say and my few programming
journeys with Euphoria.
I guess for instance that functions and procedures need to be
decalred before they can be used. This one little thing in itself
isn't a huge drawback ... but after weeks of programming and
organising source code ... all of a sudden you have to start cutting
and pasting code all over the place because you want to call a
function or procedure from a different place. It's just a pain!
I started a thread a few months back (maybe 6 months) where ... I in a
round about sort of way suggested that RDS should officially sponser
some of the people working on the popular libraries.
The way this works would be difficult to determine ... but my
question is ... why should the Derek's, Judith's, Matt's etc work
hundreds of hours for no financial gain?
It's fun to write a library ... it's alot of WORK to debug, document
and support it!
Win32Lib and the IDE (my two favourite examples) still aren't at
version 1.0 yet ... but when they are ... I think Rob should step in
and reward the authors in some way ... more than just "happy points".
These two efforts alone I beleive will sell more copies of Euphoria
than Euphoria itself!
> You're actually right about the ommericalism. Now, looking at the
> open-source languages, tell be why they're commerically backed up.
Companies will pay people to improve the open source products.
Obviously the companies use these products and get benefits from the
improved product.
Others are based around commercial support contracts.
Both of the these obviously need lots of commercial users to begin
with. So we start taking about the chicken and the ....
It's great to hear the news about the commercial game being released!
And the "program registration" program a few weeks ago. These are
excellent steps!
I'd still like to see a web page with a list of products (good
products! - that counts me out!) commercial, freeware, shareware or
otherwise that links to web sites where I could see at least screen
dumps and even downloads.
I know I shouldn't be so negative all the time. Maybe I should put
my tail between my legs and walk away for 6 months or so and come
back when I have a better outlook?? Or some new killer software to
show off?
Ray Smith
http;//www.geocities.com/ray_223
7. RE: The Euphorian Way
irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> There's no doubt about that last statement. Judith's latest IDE is at
> LEAST
> as usable as Delphi. More stable, actually.
>
> And we shouldn't forget that without Dave Cuny's Win32Lib, Euphoria
> still wouldn't do windows at all.
>
> The question, of course, is what kind of reward? I'm quite sure that
> Rob doesn't make much from Euphoria sales - maybe enough to pay
> for a two-week vacation each year. What other options are there?
This is obviously the difficult question. I just think it's to
difficult for the newbie (and to time consuming for the rest) to
download a dozen or so seperate tools and libraries, read the doco
for each one and figure out how to put it all together.
I haven't kept up to date with the IDE and Win32Lib but they must be
packaged better and "officially supported" in some way or another.
I "think" (maybe I'm wrong) these libraries are getting to the stage
where they are mature and useable.
I'm sure if these authors where asked if they where rewarded by some
small finincial benefits would they provided some level of support
(and better doco) for these tools. I fear if nothing is done to
reward the people putting a huge amount of work in, that they will
eventually move on, like many before have.
Even if it's only 1 or 2 dollars per registered users payments. And
then only old releases are made publicily available (a bit like Ada
releases).
Other people have suggested similiar types of ideass in the past.
The Windows installer with libraries built in.
The standard Euphoria libraries project.
Just recently (the start of this thread) was a standard way of
add-on tools to be used with Euphoria.
I feel that it's just a bit cluncky how it all fits together and I
have been suggesting that to fix it, make it more slick then why not
reward the people doing the work to give them incentive to finish or
improve the libraries that they are working on.
Ray Smith
http;//www.geocities.com/ray_223
8. RE: The Euphorian Way
Alright, you guys are going to see my name a lot for the next couple of
days. I've got a lot to say on this subject. Whether it's worthwhile to
read is decided by yourselves. My standard disclaimer: I'm not a
professional programmer. I'm not academically trained as a coder. I
approach these problems as a user, hobbiest, and engineer that wants to
solve problems quickly and easily, and hopefully, re-uses pieces of
solutions that WORK.
> From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
>
>
> > How is this different to people writting include libraries now?
> > The actual Euphoria libraries are the things that make Euphoria
> > what it is. Where would Euphoria be without Win32Lib and the
> > other half dozen most popular libraries?
>
> Good point. Without the work of Dave Cuny, Judith Evans,
> and many others, my guess is Euphoria would still be a
> DOS-only language.
> Writing a programming language is no longer something which
> can be done by one or two people. Send your thankews to
> Bill Gates for that.
>
> > I agree Euphoria is a nice language but it still lacks a fair bit
> > with regard to connecting with other technologies. A lot of
> > libraries and tools have been developed but most are half done,
> > badly documented and largely untested.
>
> Correct, but why? And what's the solution?
--------------------------------interrupt here--------------------
The solution is to identify the CRITICAL technologies and make an effort
to interface with them. Put the best coders on these problems. There are
a corps of 4/5 coders who have proven their worth. I think most of us
know who they are.
This list is a great forum to hash out exactly what the critical new
technologies are. I'm beginning to believe that any support should be
done in includes/libraries as much as possible. The smaller the core
Euphoria, the better, IMO.
------------------------------end my response------------------------
>
> > OOP support would need to be added before Euphoria gained any
> > mainstream support and more "commercial quality" libraries are
> > required. This largely would require the current libraries to be
> > brushed up and a few more added. (A huge amount of work by the > way)
> .
> I don't think OOP is a necessity. Programmers have found that it's
> not the miracle cure it was hyped to be, and have rightly demoted
> it to the status of 'just another tool' to be used when appropriate.
> Of course, the argument could be made that 'commercial quality
> libraries' would be easier to create if we had standard OOP features.
> I wouldn't disagree.
--------------------------------interrupt here--------------------
I was a huge OOP proponent at one time. With a bit of tutorial, I
discovered that I could do a large part of what I wanted more
efficiently WITHOUT OOP. A nice, simple tutorial on some of the more
advanced subjects would be fantastic, if someone wants to undertake it.
It would get my "happy dollars".
------------------------------end my response------------------------
9. RE: The Euphorian Way
Parts snipped for space
> > I don't like OOP.
>
> OOP, if required, needlessly obfuscates what would otherwise be
> clean code. If you're developing a GUI, it's perfect. For an
> accounting program, it's no big deal.
>
But one of the primary dreams of OOP was to enable code re-use, no
matter if you're writing accounting, GUIs, games, simulations
(especially useful for simulations). I think the Eu includes work BETTER
in some ways for code re-use, but some things they just don't get at.
For example, I cut my simulation teeth on a traffic simulator in school,
written in something called SLAM-II. This was even before C++, back in
the 80s. But you could define an object ( a car or a redlight, for
example) that would have specific attributes. But you couldn't change
just one attribute ( e.g. make all lights have a minimum red of 1
minute) and have it filter to all lights. You had to change each one by
hand. Fine for the academic exercise, since we only had to simulate 3
lights. But for a real simulation, with maybe 100 or more, it would be
exhausting.
In C++, I can make that change. In Eu, AFAIK, I have to do it by hand
again, though I suspect there might be a way to avoid that if you're
clever.
> > Make it easier to use? For instance, in mirc, Icon, and Dialog, if you
> want a Windows
> > window to pop up and display something, it's a one-word command, like
> puts() is. You
> > can get fancier if you want. Same with networking, sending an email in
> Rebol takes
> > one line of code. Having all those things from the Turbo Pascal suite of
> tools that i
> > used in dos some 8 yrs ago would be nice too.
>
> Exactly. The lack of those things in Euphoria has always been
> cited as an 'advantage' - you can write anything you want, and
> add it on. It's turned out to be a disadvantage, instead. Not just
> anyone *can* write those things and add them on. Especially
> if we expect them to work.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
But that's exactly the sort of problems Python, Ruby, Rebol, etc. faced
if I'm not mistaken. Much of their funtionality is created by their
libraries also. The difference is they had enough very talented
programmers among their users to develop the tools they needed.
I know there are a lot of talented programmers using Eu. I don't know
why they aren't creating needed libraries, but I do think one reason is
the needed libraries haven't been clearly defined.
Or maybe better incentive is needed, though I don't believe it is. The
programmers who created the Python, Perl, Ruby, etc. modules didn't
receive ANY compensation to my knowledge.
There seems to be a cultural difference. Possibly one reason is that Eu
SEEMS to be targetted at amateurs, rather than professionals.
10. RE: The Euphorian Way
Parts snipped for space
> And we shouldn't forget that without Dave Cuny's Win32Lib, Euphoria
> still wouldn't do windows at all.
>
> The question, of course, is what kind of reward? I'm quite sure that
> Rob doesn't make much from Euphoria sales - maybe enough to pay
> for a two-week vacation each year. What other options are there?
At least one answer is obvious: start by giving the proven programmers a
free copy of ALL the Eu products/platforms they want (that's what, 4
sales per person max?) regardless of "happy dollars." By now it should
be pretty clear that Win32lib is the clear choice for Win programmers.
Judith's IDE has pretty much taken over as the choice of IDE. Those 2 AT
LEAST should get their biggest contributors free programs.
Additionally, I think those main contributors should be allowed the Eu
C-source if they want it. They've proven their worth. Make them sign a
NDA and a non-compete agreement, and hand it over if they think they can
do something good with it. Of course Rob would have final approval over
any changes (and the contributors might be limited to suggestions, and
Rob might have to implement any changes) made to the source. But by
seeing the source, better tools, better integration or improvements to
Eu might result. It wouldn't hurt that I can see.
11. RE: The Euphorian Way
irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
> >
> > Advertising costs on the Net have dropped considerably
> > in the past year with all the over-hyped .com's dropping
> > by the wayside. RDS puts a significant percentage of sales
> > back into advertising (e.g. Goto.com and similar places),
> > and also gets free advertising from Topica, LinkExchange
> > and all those shareware sites that have Euphoria on them.
> >
>
> Guido van Rossum has had good success getting Python advertised
> for free in various computer magazines, in the guise of interviews.
> One magazine article would be worth maybe 10,000 click thrus.
>
> I assume that Guido is a pleasant person to talk to, and that he makes
> himself available to writers who may be facing a deadline and a blank
> piece of paper. ( IOW, just about every writer that ever existed..)
>
> Regards,
> Irv
This is an outstanding idea. The last article on Eu that I saw was
several years ago. It certainly could use an update, especially to
advertise the translator and the new Win tools.
12. RE: The Euphorian Way
irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
> >
> > Advertising costs on the Net have dropped considerably
> > in the past year with all the over-hyped .com's dropping
> > by the wayside. RDS puts a significant percentage of sales
> > back into advertising (e.g. Goto.com and similar places),
> > and also gets free advertising from Topica, LinkExchange
> > and all those shareware sites that have Euphoria on them.
> >
>
> Guido van Rossum has had good success getting Python advertised
> for free in various computer magazines, in the guise of interviews.
> One magazine article would be worth maybe 10,000 click thrus.
>
> I assume that Guido is a pleasant person to talk to, and that he makes
> himself available to writers who may be facing a deadline and a blank
> piece of paper. ( IOW, just about every writer that ever existed..)
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
>
>
