1. Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Yeah yeah hi yall.
So I have being coding three Euphoria compilers.
One for DOS32,one for WIN32 and one for LINUX.
Soon they will be ready,and I need some folks to test there apps on it.
If you wanna help testing,then let me know on this list.
You get free copies of the working-on versions.
Because of copyright and moral issues,the language the compilers read is not
"Euphoria" but an OOP version called "U4IA++".
This OOP version can use .lib,.obj,.c,.cpp and .h C/C++ source files for
mixed-language programming,allows in-line Visual Basic for all three
platforms,has its own Win32 GUI library,compiles into C/C++
.obj/.lib/.a/.c/.cpp files,and the Win32 version can compile into DLL's and
AX controls aswell.
Too good to be true?
Nope.
I just need help testing this once I have a version that I can call
"stable".
The entire package (including IDE with Inteli Sense) is 10 to 20 MBs large
ZIPPED.
The code generated operates at 10 times the speed of Interpretted U4IA,and
the compilers used are GNU GCC based,but you can use other plug-in compilers
such as Watcom or Visual C++ aswell. You'll see what I'm talking about
later.
If there ain't no interest in this,then I'll test it myself with the testers
I have at work. I just wanted to get the U4IA pro's on it first.
And yeah yeah,it has a source-level tracer and profiler...
Mike The Spike,
L&H Speech Recognition,S.AI.L department
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
2. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Hello Mike,
I'll be glad of testing the compilers.
--
Best regards, ICQ Number: 3198249
Caballero Rojo mailto:pampeano at rocketmail.com
Sunday, April 02, 2000, 10:59:43 AM, you wrote:
MTS> Yeah yeah hi yall.
MTS> So I have being coding three Euphoria compilers.
MTS> One for DOS32,one for WIN32 and one for LINUX.
MTS> Soon they will be ready,and I need some folks to test there apps on it.
MTS> If you wanna help testing,then let me know on this list.
MTS> You get free copies of the working-on versions.
MTS> Because of copyright and moral issues,the language the compilers read is
not
MTS> "Euphoria" but an OOP version called "U4IA++".
MTS> This OOP version can use .lib,.obj,.c,.cpp and .h C/C++ source files for
MTS> mixed-language programming,allows in-line Visual Basic for all three
MTS> platforms,has its own Win32 GUI library,compiles into C/C++
MTS> .obj/.lib/.a/.c/.cpp files,and the Win32 version can compile into DLL's and
MTS> AX controls aswell.
MTS> Too good to be true?
MTS> Nope.
MTS> I just need help testing this once I have a version that I can call
MTS> "stable".
MTS> The entire package (including IDE with Inteli Sense) is 10 to 20 MBs large
MTS> ZIPPED.
MTS> The code generated operates at 10 times the speed of Interpretted U4IA,and
MTS> the compilers used are GNU GCC based,but you can use other plug-in
compilers
MTS> such as Watcom or Visual C++ aswell. You'll see what I'm talking about
MTS> later.
MTS> If there ain't no interest in this,then I'll test it myself with the
testers
MTS> I have at work. I just wanted to get the U4IA pro's on it first.
MTS> And yeah yeah,it has a source-level tracer and profiler...
MTS> Mike The Spike,
MTS> L&H Speech Recognition,S.AI.L department
MTS> ______________________________________________________
MTS> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
3. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Way to go, pal! Is one of your other names Everett L. Williams?
Tempting the weak? jiri
4. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:59:43 GMT, Mike The Spike
<mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>The code generated operates at 10 times the speed of Interpretted U4IA,and
>the compilers used are GNU GCC based,but you can use other plug-in
compilers
>L&H Speech Recognition,S.AI.L department
>L&H Speech Recognition, S.AI.L devision
______________________________________________________
Since this is the first time I have seen your e-mail address
on this list, I have some questions.
Do your compiler's support sequences ?
What Dos extender does it use for the DPMI ?
How much experience do you have at programming in Euphoria ?
Will the source code be available ?
How did you determine that it was 10 times faster ?
How come in one e-mail S.AI.L is a department and in another a
devision ( which is not spelled correctly ) ?
5. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Mike The Spike <mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
>Way to go, pal! Is one of your other names Everett L. Williams?
>Tempting the weak? jiri
Thanks man!
Hey I know Everett,no I'm not him (the last time I checked : )
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
6. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Mike The Spike <mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
>
> Since this is the first time I have seen your e-mail address
> on this list, I have some questions.
Fire away!
> Do your compiler's support sequences ?
Yes,and classes too.
> What Dos extender does it use for the DPMI ?
Under DOS? Causeway.
> How much experience do you have at programming in Euphoria ?
How about since I was 14?
> Will the source code be available ?
No. The package will cost 2000 US dollars in the stores.
You can buy my book "The U4IA++ Programming Language" if you want.
> How did you determine that it was 10 times faster ?
Sieve,shell-sort,math,etc. Benchmarks under Win32 using VC++ 5.0 as a
plug-in compiler.
> How come in one e-mail S.AI.L is a department and in another a
> devision ( which is not spelled correctly ) ?
I dont know what to call it,if you know L&H,you know it's located in
Belgium. So am I. That can explain the typo, and what the crap S.AI.L is we
don't know ourselves down here since it's the new name for FLV (Flanders
Language Valley),a valley located in Yper where speech products such as
Voice Xpress are written. S.AI.L stands for Speech, Artificial Inteligence
and Language. Check out http://www.flv.be for info on the name change.
Mike The Spike,
L&H (better?)
PS. No funny cracks a "Language",I don't place spaces behind commas cos I
dont wanna! :p
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
7. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Ian Smith <whoisian at HOTMAIL.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
Jiri Babor wrote:
>Way to go, pal! Is one of your other names Everett L. Williams?
>Tempting the weak? jiri
Jiri, regardless on how you feel or how angry something someone says on this
list, if you don't have anything nice or USEFUL to say, don't say it at ALL.
Ian.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
8. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Ian Smith <whoisian at HOTMAIL.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
I'd like point this out: It doesn't make sense to make a compiler that
really isn't a compiler but rather a CONVERTER to another language when the
language that is being converted was developed to provide an alternative to
C/C++ and other such languages. Second, i don't think people will pay 2000
dollars U.S. for something that is a utilitie for a software package that
costs 39 dolloars u.s. and comes with a utility to build EXE's and still
keep speed. The only advantage is that this "U4IA++" this supports syntax
for classes; Even that doesn't matter much because they're are many Euphoria
libraries that pretty much implement a full OOP system.(ie. Object Euphoria)
Lastly, the fact that your renaming the language and extending it by 2%
doesn't make it right that your bastardizing and ripping off a language that
was developed by 2 people over 3 years of hard work and relatively small
profit.
I'd like to think of this reply as stating the obivious.
Again, I hope a lot of people read this so that they don't be become 2000
dollars poorer.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
9. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Wake up, Ian. Your day was yesterday. jiri
10. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Curtis Loftis <CurLfts at CS.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
i would like to test. thank you.
11. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:59:17 GMT, Ian Smith <whoisian at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>I'd like point this out: It doesn't make sense to make a compiler that
>really isn't a compiler but rather a CONVERTER to another language when the
>language that is being converted was developed to provide an alternative to
>C/C++ and other such languages.
Come now, most C compilers convert C into ASSEMBLY, which then gets
converted into machine code. All compilers *are* translators. There is
nothing wrong with taking a C compiler and building another language on top
of it. There are many optimisers written for C programs that would greatly
benefit the host language. I seem to remember (probably incorrectly) that
Python programs are translated into C before being compiled.
The recent versions of Peu partly support translating Euphoria to C as well.
>Second, i don't think people will pay 2000
>dollars U.S. for something that is a utilitie for a software package that
>costs 39 dolloars u.s. and comes with a utility to build EXE's and still
>keep speed. The only advantage is that this "U4IA++" this supports syntax
>for classes; Even that doesn't matter much because they're are many >
>Euphoria libraries that pretty much implement a full OOP system.(ie. Object
>Euphoria)
I agree that 2000 bucks is a bit steep for a programming language; even
Microsoft doesn't charge that much for their development tools. (well maybe
if you add up the cost of every upgrade)
A built-in OOP system will most-likely have a speed advantage over any
emulated OOP interface coded in pure Euphoria.
>Lastly, the fact that your renaming the language and extending it by 2%
>doesn't make it right that your bastardizing and ripping off a language
>that was developed by 2 people over 3 years of hard work and relatively
>small profit.
>
>I'd like to think of this reply as stating the obivious.
>
>Again, I hope a lot of people read this so that they don't be become 2000
>dollars poorer.
At first I thought the compilers post was a day-late April Fools joke... but
if it really exists I would certainly enjoy trying it out. Especially if it
supports Linux (and probably not a stretch to support BeOS as well)
Pete Eberlein
12. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Prasanta Chakraborty <prasanta at WRITEME.COM>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
I would like to be one of the testers. Count me in.
Regards,
Prassanta.
13. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Joe Otto <joeotto at SWBELL.NET>
Apr 02, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 03, 2000
Mike,
If U4IA++ is everything you've stated, it sounds pretty exciting. Please
include me in your test group.
Joe
> One for DOS32,one for WIN32 and one for LINUX.
> This OOP version can use .lib,.obj,.c,.cpp and .h C/C++ source files for
> mixed-language programming,allows in-line Visual Basic for all three
> platforms,has its own Win32 GUI library,compiles into C/C++
> .obj/.lib/.a/.c/.cpp files,and the Win32 version can compile into
> DLL's and
> AX controls aswell.
> The code generated operates at 10 times the speed of Interpretted U4IA,and
> the compilers used are GNU GCC based,but you can use other
> plug-in compilers
> such as Watcom or Visual C++ aswell. You'll see what I'm talking about
> later.
> And yeah yeah,it has a source-level tracer and profiler...
>
> Mike The Spike,
> L&H Speech Recognition,S.AI.L department
14. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>I'd like point this out: It doesn't make sense to make a compiler that
>really isn't a compiler but rather a CONVERTER to another language when the
>language that is being converted was developed to provide an alternative to
>C/C++ and other such languages.
I wrote 3 C,C++ and ASM compilers for 3 platforms to go with this package
FROM SCRATCH, other C/C++ and ASM compilers can be plugged in to provide
ways to compile into Playstation,N64 and even Gameboy consoles.
>Second, i don't think people will pay 2000
>dollars U.S. for something that is a utilitie for a software package that
>costs 39 dolloars u.s. and comes with a utility to build EXE's and still
>keep speed.
Yes they will.
I have held many presentations at many companies and they all fell over when
hearing about the benefits.
>The only advantage is that this "U4IA++" this supports syntax
>for classes; Even that doesn't matter much because they're are many
>Euphoria
>libraries that pretty much implement a full OOP system.(ie. Object
>Euphoria)
Not only classes, U4IA++ has a branch that is the most powerfull, unique
invention in the field of electronics for aslong as humans have walked this
planet. Multi-platform 3D graphics and high-speed sound routines are present
aswell.
The classes are realy simple,there is not special declaration at all,simply
say:
type myclass()
global procedure foo()
end procedure
end type
global procedure myclass.foo()
puts(1,"YEAH!")
end procedure
myclass class.foo()
My two technologies: PAL/DIS have caused commotion among OS developers.
Procedure Allocation Language and Dynamic Interprettation System
technologies are incorporated into the language,making it able to call
routines contained in other U4IA++ executable images even in DOS.
>Lastly, the fact that your renaming the language and extending it by 2%
>doesn't make it right that your bastardizing and ripping off a language
>that
>was developed by 2 people over 3 years of hard work and relatively small
>profit.
Euphoria was ripped from LISP and others,I ripped from LISP and
Euphoria,U4IA++ is about 62% different then Euphoria and don't worry,they
are two completely different languages,U4IA++ being based on my transcript
"The language Of Life".
Also,I might rename the language to "NightShade".
>I'd like to think of this reply as stating the obivious.
>
>Again, I hope a lot of people read this so that they don't be become 2000
>dollars poorer.
Again,anyone who reads this gets the package for free,I'm not selling my
crap here,I'm offering it to anyone who will be able to yell at me with
"Hey! It blew up!" when something goes wrong.
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
15. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>i would like to test. thank you.
Sure thing man!
I'll keep you informed!
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
16. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Come now, most C compilers convert C into ASSEMBLY, which then gets
>converted into machine code. All compilers *are* translators. There is
>nothing wrong with taking a C compiler and building another language on top
>of it. There are many optimisers written for C programs that would greatly
>benefit the host language. I seem to remember (probably incorrectly) that
>Python programs are translated into C before being compiled.
>
>The recent versions of Peu partly support translating Euphoria to C as
>well.
Exactly. And,many companies wouldn't even hear me out untill I said it
provided a way to include C and C++ source files.
You won't see me porting every single C/C++ based API to U4IA++ by hand.
>I agree that 2000 bucks is a bit steep for a programming language; even
>Microsoft doesn't charge that much for their development tools. (well
>maybe
>if you add up the cost of every upgrade)
Yeah but I have to pay for all the C/C++ compilers included with it.
I will have a lite version for about a 100 bucks aswell,wich only supports 3
platforms instead of 70.
>A built-in OOP system will most-likely have a speed advantage over any
>emulated OOP interface coded in pure Euphoria.
I agree.
Also,DLL's,shared libraries and even executables can be converted into
classes,and you can access there functionality as a regular Object even
accross network boundaries.
>At first I thought the compilers post was a day-late April Fools joke...
>but
>if it really exists I would certainly enjoy trying it out. Especially if
>it
>supports Linux (and probably not a stretch to support BeOS as well)
>
>Pete Eberlein
Hehe Pete,I have to say that you will be pleased to hear that U4IA++
supports Inline Assembly :)
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
17. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>I would like to be one of the testers. Count me in.
>
>Regards,
>Prassanta.
The more the merrier,you're added to my list! :p
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
18. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Mike,
>
>If U4IA++ is everything you've stated, it sounds pretty exciting. Please
>include me in your test group.
>
>Joe
It is,and more!
You're hired! :D
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
19. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Well, I'm interested too, and above all very curious. Count me in please.
And if you can compile your compiler on sparc-solaris...
Riwal Raude
rauder at thmulti.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike The Spike [SMTP:mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:26 AM
> To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
> Subject: Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>
> >i would like to test. thank you.
>
> Sure thing man!
> I'll keep you informed!
>
> Mike The Spike
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
20. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Well, I'm interested too, and above all very curious. Count me in >please.
Way ahead of you man!
You're on!
>And if you can compile your compiler on sparc-solaris...
sparc-solaris eh?
Does sparc-solaris feature C compilers for it?
If so,then yeah it can compile U4IA++ progs for solaris.
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
21. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Mark Brown <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
Apr 03, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 04, 2000
Mike the Spike (???) wrote....
> So I have being coding three Euphoria compilers.
> One for DOS32,one for WIN32 and one for LINUX.
I guess what I'm about to say will blow my chance of a "free copy" but here
goes
anyway.....
> This OOP version can use .lib,.obj,.c,.cpp and .h C/C++ source files for
> mixed-language programming,allows in-line Visual Basic for all three
> platforms,has its own Win32 GUI library,compiles into C/C++
> .obj/.lib/.a/.c/.cpp files,and the Win32 version can compile into DLL's
and
> AX controls aswell.
Wow that's some compiler. To what extent is inline VB supported? I don't
know
VB but I thought it was entirely Windows based. Surely the only reason to
include
inline VB is to code VB stuff. If it's just some inline syntax from another
language
then I can't see the point.
If you are able to output assembly code, aren't you 90% of the way to
producing
something that doesn't need to sit on top of C anyway?
> The code generated operates at 10 times the speed of Interpretted U4IA,and
> the compilers used are GNU GCC based,but you can use other plug-in
compilers
> such as Watcom or Visual C++ aswell. You'll see what I'm talking about
> later.
If the code being generated is C++ (of whatever dialect), won't it
basically produce
code of the speed that the compiler would produce with equivalent
optimisation?
In my limited experience I haven't noticed this sort of speed improvement of
C code
when compared with EU.
>Yeah but I have to pay for all the C/C++ compilers included with it.
>I will have a lite version for about a 100 bucks aswell,wich only supports
3
>platforms instead of 70.
Umm...I thought you said this PRODUCED C code to be compiled BY the compiler
that the user already has. Why provide a squizillian compilers with the
package?
> If there ain't no interest in this,then I'll test it myself with the
testers
> I have at work. I just wanted to get the U4IA pro's on it first.
If you supply the URL then EVERYONE on this list will look at it and you
will certainly
get the help you need.
As it stands it does sound too good to be true and my (admittedly limited)
knowledge
is telling me that this doesn't gel. I suspect an upset ex-member of the
list (a few of
them around at the moment unfortunately!) might just be having a lend!
Mark
22. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Mike,
I love it. Yesterday's defenders of the faith, grim guardians of the
oracle, are, today, falling over each other in a rush to cut his
throat - just to get their paws on a piece of vaporware. Absolutely
brilliant! jiri
23. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Oh yeah I forgot.
Do yall like to be able to import Visual Basic source files using an import
header statement,and be able to call all objects/routines/variables
immediatly afterwards,or,do yall like to in-line basic source. for ex.
-*
This is the first method, using an import
statement. And nottice the comment operators
I'm using :p
*-
import module.bas -- Wich contains the function "drawCrap"
drawCrap( "I'm an ass" )
-- or, (This is a U4IA++ app)
Private Sub drawCrap(str as string)
me.Print str
End Sub
drawCrap( "I'm an ass" )
if wait_key() then end if
The built-in VB compiler can compile VB into machine code,I just need to
find the best way to make use of embedded VB. (I'm not a VB fan BTW)
The form printing is done by the multi-platform 'windows.e' U4IA++ GUI
include file, so all your forms are present. You can create VB variables and
objects, but, you can only use AX controls under Win32.
Mike The Spike
Take THAAAAAATTTT MicroCrap!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
24. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Mike,
>
>I love it. Yesterday's defenders of the faith, grim guardians of the
>oracle, are, today, falling over each other in a rush to cut his
>throat - just to get their paws on a piece of vaporware. Absolutely
>brilliant! jiri
Yeah I guess it's vaporware Jiri :p
untill it's out,offcourse...
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
25. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Brown" <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
> Mike the Spike (???) wrote....
>
> > So I have being coding three Euphoria compilers.
> > One for DOS32,one for WIN32 and one for LINUX.
>
<snip>
>
> If you supply the URL then EVERYONE on this list will look at it and you
> will certainly
> get the help you need.
>
> As it stands it does sound too good to be true and my (admittedly limited)
> knowledge
> is telling me that this doesn't gel. I suspect an upset ex-member of the
> list (a few of
> them around at the moment unfortunately!) might just be having a lend!
I haveto agree,, something is fishy here. Since i put Eu in the LISP
family,, and everything else LISPy is slower than compiled languages, and
LISP-like languages have been around awhile, i think if it was possible to
compile them before now, it would have been done already. Several Ai
projects have bit the dust over speed problems, and i suspect if Eu isn't
made extremely optimized, it will not make it as even a general purpose
language,, but given how much money has been thrown at the Ai speed problem,
someone would have done this before now if it was do-able. I'd still
sacrifice the speed (gained by the next optimization) to get a few other
programming options not available in compiled languages. I could make
suggestions,, if anyone is interested...
Kat
----- Original Message -----
From: "jiri babor" <jbabor at PARADISE.NET.NZ>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
> Mike,
>
> I love it. Yesterday's defenders of the faith, grim guardians of the
> oracle, are, today, falling over each other in a rush to cut his
> throat - just to get their paws on a piece of vaporware. Absolutely
> brilliant! jiri
Given it's a "testing betaware" occasion, and Robert was given the
suggestion of speeding up Eu, in a commercial product and in a (mostly)
capitalist world, what did you expect, really? Didn't Micro$oft sell code
before it was written several times? <rant_mode> Of course, they have yet to
make code that doesn't crash or wipe the puter or give safe haven to
virii/trojans or need rebooting often... Shoot, windoze actively sends 3
internet requests for info ( to 224.0.0.2 ) when it logs online, requests
that can be intercepted and used against the computer, and the data about it
in the MS database is wrong, and if that's not shooting the customer, i
don't know what is. </rant_mode>
I still vote with Mark (above), a software re-seller coding a super-new
super-speed super compiler for Eu that runs on 70 platforms?,, i don't think
so. It's a valid wakeup call for Robert tho, even if rather maddening and
depressing for him. And it's not in the USA or Canada, so he's essentially
out of practical reach of copyright prosecution. Or prosecution for bad
code.
Kat,
safely paranoid like a Cat,
and somehow wishing she was working on Robert's team to "save" Eu,
but not into office politics.
26. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Given it's a "testing betaware" occasion, and Robert was given the
>suggestion of speeding up Eu, in a commercial product and in a (mostly)
>capitalist world, what did you expect, really? Didn't Micro$oft sell code
>before it was written several times? <rant_mode> Of course, they have yet
>to
>make code that doesn't crash or wipe the puter or give safe haven to
>virii/trojans or need rebooting often... Shoot, windoze actively sends 3
>internet requests for info ( to 224.0.0.2 ) when it logs online, requests
>that can be intercepted and used against the computer, and the data about
>it
>in the MS database is wrong, and if that's not shooting the customer, i
>don't know what is. </rant_mode>
>
>I still vote with Mark (above), a software re-seller coding a super-new
>super-speed super compiler for Eu that runs on 70 platforms?,, i don't
>think
>so. It's a valid wakeup call for Robert tho, even if rather maddening and
>depressing for him. And it's not in the USA or Canada, so he's essentially
>out of practical reach of copyright prosecution. Or prosecution for bad
>code.
>
>Kat,
>safely paranoid like a Cat,
>and somehow wishing she was working on Robert's team to "save" Eu,
>but not into office politics.
That's another issue.
Robert *should* speed up interpretted Euphoria.
I see a million ways of doing it myself.
Hell, U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter.
Untill I realised that you can never compile for consoles using an
interpretter,thus making it obsolete.
Here's a tip:
When comparing the Euphoria ShellSort benchmark to Visual C++ 5.0 optimised
code, I saw that Euphoria was 11 times slower.
When I replaced all sequences used in the ShellSort benchmark with memory
reads/writes using peek/poke, it was only 3 times slower.
So avoid sequences at all costs in Interpretted Euphoria, U4IA++ repesents
them as simple arrays so you shouldn't worry about that.
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
27. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:42:01 GMT, Mike The Spike
<mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>That's another issue.
>Robert *should* speed up interpretted Euphoria.
>I see a million ways of doing it myself.
>Hell, U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter.
>Untill I realised that you can never compile for consoles using an
>interpretter,thus making it obsolete.
>
>Here's a tip:
>When comparing the Euphoria ShellSort benchmark to Visual C++ 5.0 optimised
>code, I saw that Euphoria was 11 times slower.
>When I replaced all sequences used in the ShellSort benchmark with memory
>reads/writes using peek/poke, it was only 3 times slower.
>So avoid sequences at all costs in Interpretted Euphoria, U4IA++ repesents
>them as simple arrays so you shouldn't worry about that.
>
>Mike The Spike
In december you were leaving messages on Pete's message board about
how you didn't know anything about the PE format or anything about
win32 and you didn't know anything about assembler. Since December
have gain a great amount of knowledege about how to translate VB and
using peeks & pokes ( assembler ) for bench marks. Your solution to
sequences is to use arrays, straight arrays are not dynamic so why
don't you explain how to use a array to emulate a sequence. It would
be ok to to explain this in C++ or any other langauge that you wish
because many of the users on this list understand more than one
programming langauge.
Looking forward to your example.
Thanks
Bernie
28. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Kat wrote:
> Given it's a "testing betaware" occasion, and
> Robert was given the suggestion of speeding up
> Eu, in a commercial product and in a (mostly)
> capitalist world, what did you expect, really?
Come on, at 10x speed increase? In Mike's daydreams.
Robert has repeatedly stated that compiling Euphoria isn't going to give any
real speed boost. I'm inclined to believe him. From prior posts, I get the
impressions that:
1. The Euphoria calling mechanism is *cheap*. Typically, an interpreted
language has a high overhead for each call that it makes. Most of the time
it's because there's some sort of stack involved, so data has to be shoved
on, and then popped off on returning. FORTH is an excellent example. But
Robert's mentioned that Euphoria's internal model isn't based on a
FORTH-like data stack.
2. Euphoria already in-line compiles code. Robert's hinted that, where
possible, Euphoria generates real assembly instructions, not just calls to
routines. The technique is nothing new (JIT compilers do it all the time).
This is apparently one of the reasons why declaring variables as integers
gets such a massive speedup.
3. A lot of operations can't be optimized by the compiler - for example,
working with sequences. If you do something like:
s1 &= s2
it's going to make a call to the sequence engine, which is *already*
compiled. The best that a compiler is going to do is get rid of some of the
glue around the call to that routine.
If people want to continue believing that a compiler will magically make
Euphoria massively faster, they can continue that fantasy. But I've yet to
encounter an good explanation as to why this would be the case.
There are a number of cases where I can see speed improvements to Euphoria,
but they don't involve compilers:
1. More optimizations to the sequence engine. On more than one occasion,
Robert has admitted that certain expensive operations had fixes sitting on
his 'to do' list.
2. Self-tuning code, along the lines of Transmeta's code morphing
(http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/crusoe/crusoe-1.html),
or HP's Dynamo
(http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dynamo-1.html).
-- David Cuny
29. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:42:01 GMT, Mike The Spike wrote:
My turn to be a critic...
>That's another issue.
>Robert *should* speed up interpretted Euphoria.
>I see a million ways of doing it myself.
So you have the source code of the Euphoria interpretter? Did you reverse
engineer the interpretter? How else can you 'see' a million ways of
speeding it up?
>Hell, U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter.
Hell, why not share your faster interpretter? Or did you not save your
code from that stage of your project?
I think I might have to put my hip waders on, it seems to be getting
deeper...
-- Brian
30. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Come on, at 10x speed increase? In Mike's daydreams.
>
>Robert has repeatedly stated that compiling Euphoria isn't going to give
>any
>real speed boost. I'm inclined to believe him. From prior posts, I get the
>impressions that:
>
>1. The Euphoria calling mechanism is *cheap*. Typically, an interpreted
>language has a high overhead for each call that it makes. Most of the time
>it's because there's some sort of stack involved, so data has to be shoved
>on, and then popped off on returning. FORTH is an excellent example. But
>Robert's mentioned that Euphoria's internal model isn't based on a
>FORTH-like data stack.
>
>2. Euphoria already in-line compiles code. Robert's hinted that, where
>possible, Euphoria generates real assembly instructions, not just calls to
>routines. The technique is nothing new (JIT compilers do it all the time).
>This is apparently one of the reasons why declaring variables as integers
>gets such a massive speedup.
>
>3. A lot of operations can't be optimized by the compiler - for example,
>working with sequences. If you do something like:
>
> s1 &= s2
>
>it's going to make a call to the sequence engine, which is *already*
>compiled. The best that a compiler is going to do is get rid of some of the
>glue around the call to that routine.
>
>If people want to continue believing that a compiler will magically make
>Euphoria massively faster, they can continue that fantasy. But I've yet to
>encounter an good explanation as to why this would be the case.
>
>There are a number of cases where I can see speed improvements to Euphoria,
>but they don't involve compilers:
>
>1. More optimizations to the sequence engine. On more than one occasion,
>Robert has admitted that certain expensive operations had fixes sitting on
>his 'to do' list.
>
>2. Self-tuning code, along the lines of Transmeta's code morphing
>
> (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/crusoe/crusoe-1.html),
>
> or HP's Dynamo
>
> (http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dynamo-1.html).
>
>-- David Cuny
No man that's wrong.
What "sequence engine"?
A sequence is just an array that can have other elements appended/prepended
to it.
No biggie,I do it with realloc in C all the time.
An array in C can only consist out of one data type right?
To place all different types of variables into a single C array you simply
create an int array, and each integer element points to the location of the
variable it contains in memory,no matter what the size is. Think of it as
poking values into memory,and storing the address in an integer array.
That's it,that's your "sequence engine".
That's how U4IA++ does it,and that's the only fast way.
If you start messing with Doubly linked lists,then your code will be slow.
Just plain old arrays do the trick.
As for Euphoria generating machine code, so what?
I can shove some bytes into memory and stream the IP register aswell,but I
can't compile a Euphoria source file entirely to Machine Code with full
optimisations like for example VC++ in 300.000 lines per second. An
interpretter can never optimise it's Machine Code like a compiler can,
because it takes too damned long to optimise Machine Code.
Look at Java, the "Virtual Machine", just plain slow that's what it is.
I have being told that the only way to write an interpretter that would be
as fast as a compiler,would be by using a real compiler as a back-bone to
produce the machine code,wich would make the start-up speed very slow and
what good is an interpretter if it has to "compile" to machine code
anyways?. It would only not be able to link to library files and produce
DLL's like a compiler can.
You will never write a DLL-based API in Interpretted Euphoria,because you
can't compile into a DLL!
U4IA++ *can* using MingW, so you can write the next 3D API in Euphoria, and
C and VB coders can use it aswell!
EVEN OPERATING SYSTEMS can be written in compiled U4IA++, kick MS in the ass
with your NONCRASHING OS(!!!)
Mike The Spike,
Try creating a .com executable in Interpretted Euphoria.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
31. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
> In december you were leaving messages on Pete's message board about
>
> how you didn't know anything about the PE format or anything about
>
> win32 and you didn't know anything about assembler. Since December
No. I said I had found many ways to do run-time error checking in machine
language.
When Pete sayed he wanted to code a Euphoria compiler,I sayed:
"I have being working on U4IA compilers,I have the preprocessors
ready,blablablabla, or, download the source to DJGPP and call it a night"
Ten bucks says you know what I did.
The PE image format is easy.
Many faqs in the new MSDN.
Anyhow,I didn't write anything that deals with PE images,I have MingW to do
that for me.
> have gain a great amount of knowledege about how to translate VB and
>
> using peeks & pokes ( assembler ) for bench marks. Your solution to
Huh? since when did Peek() and Poke() become assembler? Do you even know
what assembler is?
> sequences is to use arrays, straight arrays are not dynamic so why
>
> don't you explain how to use a array to emulate a sequence. It would
Oh no,and "realloc()" isn't used for dynamically re-sizing arrays huh?
Gee,them folks at ANSI sure are crazy to have them in C for 30 years...
> be ok to to explain this in C++ or any other langauge that you wish
>
> because many of the users on this list understand more than one
>
> programming langauge.
>
> Looking forward to your example.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bernie
Do I look like David Gay?
Am I your math teacher?
Figure it out,I have said enough allready.
all I can say is this:
#include <malloc.h>
void main()
{
float fl = 3.14;
int i = 666;
double dbl = 555555555.666666666;
short sh = 45;
char ch = 'h';
int * sequence;
sequence = (int*)malloc(5*sizeof(int));
sequence = {&fl,&i,&dbl,&sh,&ch}; /* Wha??? It works??? */
}
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
32. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>My turn to be a critic...
>
> >That's another issue.
> >Robert *should* speed up interpretted Euphoria.
> >I see a million ways of doing it myself.
>
>So you have the source code of the Euphoria interpretter? Did you reverse
>engineer the interpretter? How else can you 'see' a million ways of
>speeding it up?
no I don't,but I do have common sense.
Here's one speedup.
Save the proclaimed "internal structure" of a Euphoria program to disk using
write(),then bind *that* with ex.exe.
Now all it's got to do is call read() one time and the porgram is loaded.
parsing the source every time you click on ex.exe is slow.
> >Hell, U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter.
>
>Hell, why not share your faster interpretter? Or did you not save your
>code from that stage of your project?
Didn't I just say "U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter"?
I think it's obvious from that line the U4IA++ used "to be" the
interpretter, since "it started out as" an interpretter.
Why do I have to repeat myself?
>I think I might have to put my hip waders on, it seems to be getting
>deeper...
>
>-- Brian
Do as you please,don't come crying at me when the rest of the world is
creating Playstation II games in U4IA++ while you are still trying to get
them GPF's out of your C source.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
33. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Whoa! Looks like someone is building up the expectations to astronomic
proportions..
I sure hope this one isn't going to crash and burn...
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
34. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:00:13 GMT, Mike The Spike wrote:
>>Hell, why not share your faster interpretter? Or did you not save your
>>code from that stage of your project?
>
>Didn't I just say "U4IA++ started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter"?
>I think it's obvious from that line the U4IA++ used "to be" the
>interpretter, since "it started out as" an interpretter.
>Why do I have to repeat myself?
You don't have to repeat yourself... that's why I added the second
question. If at one point I had a Euphoria interpretter that was faster
than the one from RDS, then I would have saved that code and shared my
implementation with those who write programs with Euphoria. *Then* I would
have proceeded with making a compiler (but I would still save the code for
this faster interpretter so that I could back up my claims). That's all...
You've got to expect a little skepticism when you make claims that you
can't immediately back up. (Sorry for being a skeptic, I will not make any
further comments until you've released something that I can comment on.)
-- Brian
35. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>Also,I might rename the language to "NightShade".
A Eu killer, or just an app that kills ?
>,I'm not selling my
>crap here,I'm offering it to anyone who
>will be able
OR WILL ?
>to yell at me with
>"Hey! It blew up!" when something goes wrong.
He sounds sure of himself that it will
>Mike The Spike
Who?
No offens intended at all Mike, I just am trying to warn those of who
have forgotten about Trojan Nate, that this kind of stuff occurs even
here, especially when people blatantly run apps that are offered "free"
and are not checked out first. If you can do all of this great, more
power to you.
I of course think it is better placed in a U4IA++ group of its
own.
Monty
36. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
- Posted by Mike The Spike <mikethespike2000 at HOTMAIL.COM>
Apr 03, 2000
-
Last edited Apr 04, 2000
>You don't have to repeat yourself... that's why I added the second
>question. If at one point I had a Euphoria interpretter that was faster
>than the one from RDS, then I would have saved that code and shared my
>implementation with those who write programs with Euphoria. *Then* I would
>have proceeded with making a compiler (but I would still save the code for
>this faster interpretter so that I could back up my claims). That's all...
>
>You've got to expect a little skepticism when you make claims that you
>can't immediately back up. (Sorry for being a skeptic, I will not make any
>further comments until you've released something that I can comment on.)
>
>-- Brian
Yeah man look.
The *project* started out as a faster Euphoria interpretter.
I never said I completed a full working Euphoria Interpretter that was
faster than RDS's,if I had,I wouldn't be creating a compiler at all.
I did test sequence appending/prepending with the source I had, and it took
50 milliseconds to append 5000 sequences to another. When doing the same
with RDS's Euphoria,I got the exact results. My method of appending was
calling realloc 5000 times,and a for loop that initialised the sequence from
scratch over and over again. That was bad code,very bad code,yet still as
fast as RDS's sequence appending.
What RDS should do to be considered producing a valid software creation
medium,is to get rid of Watcom and get Visual C++ for Win32 and DJGPP for
DOS. Watcom is slower than DJGPP and VC++ 6.0 is currently producing the
fastest code available on any PC platform.
Euphoria can be sped up by 30% just by switching compilers. If they can't
afford VC++, they can feel free to ask me for a copy of Enterprise Edition
5,I have a Microsoft license to install that software on 10 computers.
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
37. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
"Mike the Spike" wrote:
> A sequence is just an array that can
> have other elements appended/prepended
> to it.
OK. just for grins let's assume that you create a 'sequence' as a list of
pointers:
{ ptr1, ptr2, ptr3, ptr4 ... ptrN }
Right away, you are slower than RDS when working with sequences, because in
order to get the value at the other end of the pointer, you need to fetch
the value the pointer is pointing to. In contrast, RDS uses one of the 32
bits to flag if the value is a number, so when dealing with sequences filled
with numbers, they have one less fetch than you do, right off the bat.
This ignores the obvious question: what kind of data is your pointer
pointing to, anyway? It's not enough that you can fill the sequence with
arbitrary data; you need to be able to read it out. But simply storing the
pointer is lossy - you've got to store a data type flag somewhere, either in
the sequence or with the data. I'll just gloss over this important point,
and move on to maintaining data integtity in structures: something your
approach doesn't do. Methinks that this will slow down your benchmark a bit
more.
Even more importantly, what happens when you have something like this?
s1 = { 1,2 }
s2 = { s1 }
If you implement it like this:
s1 --> { ptr1, ptr2 }
s2 --> { ptr3 }
ptr1 --> 1
ptr2 --> 2
ptr3 --> s1
then your code *breaks* when an operation like this is performed:
s[2] = 3
because the data structure now looks like this:
s1 --> { ptr1, ptr4 }
s2 --> { ptr3 }
ptr1 --> 1
ptr2 --> 2
ptr3 --> s1
ptr4 --> 3
and the sequences contain:
s1 = { 1, 3 }
s2 = { { 1, 3 } }
instead of:
s1 = { 1, 3 }
s2 = { { 1, 2 } }
After you finish adding reference counting, indirection and garbage
collection to your code, try performing those benchmarks again - I don't
think even the fanciest compiler is going to be much help in running faster
than Euphoria.
-- David Cuny
38. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
U4IA++ sounds promising. If such a godsend exists,
I would like to take advantage of your offer.
BTW:
If you really want people to test your software, why don't you just give
the URL where we could find it? There's no reason to flirt it seeing as you
said you already KNOW people will be willing to pay the money for it.
A curious skeptic
Chris
39. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
> >Also,I might rename the language to "NightShade".
>
>A Eu killer, or just an app that kills ?
>
>
> >,I'm not selling my
> >crap here,I'm offering it to anyone who
>
>
> >will be able
>
>OR WILL ?
>
> >to yell at me with
> >"Hey! It blew up!" when something goes wrong.
>
>He sounds sure of himself that it will
>
>
> >Mike The Spike
>
>Who?
>
>No offens intended at all Mike, I just am trying to warn those of who
>have forgotten about Trojan Nate, that this kind of stuff occurs even
>here, especially when people blatantly run apps that are offered "free"
>and are not checked out first. If you can do all of this great, more
>power to you.
> I of course think it is better placed in a U4IA++ group of its
>own.
>Monty
WTF?
Trojan?
That software is under legal proction pal, you can't even put on disk or you
will be arrested, now I'm gonna write an entire trojan horse application
just so I can laugh while crawling under my desk in my lonenely appartment?
Whoever sent you a trojan (and intened to send it) is a fool.
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
40. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
>"Mike the Spike" wrote:
>
> > A sequence is just an array that can
> > have other elements appended/prepended
> > to it.
>
>OK. just for grins let's assume that you create a 'sequence' as a list of
>pointers:
>
> { ptr1, ptr2, ptr3, ptr4 ... ptrN }
>
>Right away, you are slower than RDS when working with sequences, because in
>order to get the value at the other end of the pointer, you need to fetch
>the value the pointer is pointing to. In contrast, RDS uses one of the 32
>bits to flag if the value is a number, so when dealing with sequences
>filled
>with numbers, they have one less fetch than you do, right off the bat.
>
>This ignores the obvious question: what kind of data is your pointer
>pointing to, anyway? It's not enough that you can fill the sequence with
>arbitrary data; you need to be able to read it out. But simply storing the
>pointer is lossy - you've got to store a data type flag somewhere, either
>in
>the sequence or with the data. I'll just gloss over this important point,
>and move on to maintaining data integtity in structures: something your
>approach doesn't do. Methinks that this will slow down your benchmark a bit
>more.
>
>Even more importantly, what happens when you have something like this?
>
> s1 = { 1,2 }
> s2 = { s1 }
>
>If you implement it like this:
>
> s1 --> { ptr1, ptr2 }
> s2 --> { ptr3 }
> ptr1 --> 1
> ptr2 --> 2
> ptr3 --> s1
>
>then your code *breaks* when an operation like this is performed:
>
> s[2] = 3
>
>because the data structure now looks like this:
>
> s1 --> { ptr1, ptr4 }
> s2 --> { ptr3 }
> ptr1 --> 1
> ptr2 --> 2
> ptr3 --> s1
> ptr4 --> 3
>
>and the sequences contain:
>
> s1 = { 1, 3 }
> s2 = { { 1, 3 } }
>
>instead of:
>
> s1 = { 1, 3 }
> s2 = { { 1, 2 } }
>
>After you finish adding reference counting, indirection and garbage
>collection to your code, try performing those benchmarks again - I don't
>think even the fanciest compiler is going to be much help in running faster
>than Euphoria.
>
>-- David Cuny
I only gave you a snippet,that's not the whole cake I posted.
The key is that "I don't have to know what the datatypes are".
I don't care.
Why should I know what the datatypes are?
Euphoria programs don't have to care.
So neighter should the compiler.
It doesn't matter if you are adding two sequences,two floats or a float and
a sequence in arith, they can all be added!
I turn a single sequence to a single array and that's all it needs.
You don't know how RDS realy implemented them,it could be just like this,you
need the source to be sure.
Allthough this gets translated to ASM in U4IA++,offcourse.
In contrast,this approach is faster when compiled,you can't just say that a
programming language (Eu) that gets 3000 Sorts per second on a benchmark,
and a Visual C++ port gets 31.000 sorts per second, its slower then
Euphoria.
It takes 7 seconds to spawn a large Eu app once you click on it in Windows,
even if that app doesn't do anything but draw a window,yet it has a large
library (ex. winapi.ew). You have to weigh out every slice of code with Eu,
if you took the libraries that a normal Win32 C++ program includes, and add
it to a Euphoria program, you can be waiting for many minutes before you
even see anything on the screen.
I just can't believe why you are saying that Euphoria is as fast as compiled
C/C++ no matter what sequence approach I use (with a real modern compiler
offcourse,not some crap from the seventies).
Mike The Spike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
41. Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon
Please include me in your compiler test on all platforms. Thanks.
John E.
