1. The Euphorian Way
- Posted by jbrown105 at hotpop.com
Jun 30, 2001
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
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--
2. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 01, 2001
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?
> 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.
> 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!
The more popular ones are supported quite well, look at O'Riley,
for example. He's made a bundle selling books about those languages.
And you can buy online or phone support for most mainstream free languages,
like perl, python. If there are enough people using a language, the support
will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
language?
Regards,
Irv
3. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net
Jul 01, 2001
On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows. Problem is,
there
is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i admit
multitasking
those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us multitasking
and
a nice gui,,,, what happened?
> > 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?
Incentive?
> > 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.
I don't like OOP.
> > 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!
>
> The more popular ones are supported quite well, look at O'Riley,
> for example. He's made a bundle selling books about those languages.
> And you can buy online or phone support for most mainstream free languages,
> like perl, python. If there are enough people using a language, the support
> will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> language?
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.
Kat
4. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 01, 2001
From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
> On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> > From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
> In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows.
Problem is, there
> is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
admit multitasking
> those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us
multitasking and
> a nice gui,,,, what happened?
My guess is, no demand. However, if you would like to try to
sell your own, they have the source code up for sale:)
> > > 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?
>
> Incentive?
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
> > > 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!
> >
> > The more popular ones are supported quite well, look at O'Riley,
> > for example. He's made a bundle selling books about those languages.
> > And you can buy online or phone support for most mainstream free
languages,
> > like perl, python. If there are enough people using a language, the
support
> > will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> > language?
>
> 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
5. Re: The Euphorian Way
> In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than
windows.Problem is, there
> is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
admit multitasking
> those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide
usmultitasking and
> a nice gui,,,, what happened?
What happened is Linux. It is free, has all of the command-line
functionality, and a LOT more, than DOS, is multitasking, is open-source,
fast, reliable, stable, and so on.
Stop lamenting DOS and make the switch to Linux. If you're used to, and
even enjoy, command-line functionality, you won't miss DOS a bit once you
make the switch.
--On Sunday, July 01, 2001 1:41 PM -0400 irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>> In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows.
> Problem is, there
>> is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
> admit multitasking
>> those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us
> multitasking and
>> a nice gui,,,, what happened?
6. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by jbrown105 at hotpop.com
Jul 01, 2001
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:41:27AM +0000, Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> How is this different to people writting include libraries now?
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.
>
> 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).
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.
>
> 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!
>
You're actually right about the ommericalism. Now, looking at the
open-source languages, tell be why they're commerically backed up.
> Anyway ... keep on Euphorian!
>
> Ray Smith
I wish the same to you.
jbrown105
--
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
http://jbrown105.1avenue.com
7. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by jbrown105 at hotpop.com
Jul 01, 2001
I merely said that the entire community should work together
and vote to make changes to the wrappings of Eu (i.e. Eu+).
For example, the community could decide which libraries
(Win32Lib, EDS, etc.) and which preprocessors (PP, Dot, etc.)
could be used to enhance Eu, and how they should be intergrated.
(The librarys really don't need intergration, but the preprocessors do.)
jbrown105
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:41:29PM -0400, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
>
> > On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> > > From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
>
> > In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows.
> Problem is, there
> > is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
> admit multitasking
> > those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us
> multitasking and
> > a nice gui,,,, what happened?
>
> My guess is, no demand. However, if you would like to try to
> sell your own, they have the source code up for sale:)
>
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Incentive?
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> > > > 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!
> > >
> > > The more popular ones are supported quite well, look at O'Riley,
> > > for example. He's made a bundle selling books about those languages.
> > > And you can buy online or phone support for most mainstream free
> languages,
> > > like perl, python. If there are enough people using a language, the
> support
> > > will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> > > language?
> >
> > 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
<snip>
>
>
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
http://jbrown105.1avenue.com
8. Re: The Euphorian Way
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> If there are enough people using a language, the support
> will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> language?
I never studied marketing and I know nothing about marketing, but as I
understand, there are two main rules of marketing:
1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
Rule number one requires explanation. The idea of "better" is a complex
idea. Better for what purpose? Different customers have different
purposes. Which is the better clock? The one that tells time to within a
second per week instead of a second per day? The one that has more
readable numbers? The one that is luminous at night? The one that you
can wear on your wrist? The one that is big enough so you can put it on
the wall and everyone can see it? The one that tells the day of the week
and the month and the date and the phases of the moon? The one that
doesn't need to be wound up? The one that doesn't depend on electricity?
Complex idea. Depends on the customer's purposes. Better means something
different for different people. But, keeping this explanation of "better"
in mind, the better product wins. It is no contradiction to say that a
bunch of products can all be better, each in its own way, each for
different customers.
Maybe I'm stupid and ignorant, but that's my theory of marketing.
I figure Euphoria probably will eventually make Basic obsolete, because
it seems to me Basic has nothing on Euphoria.
The contest between Euphoria and C/C++/C# will be tougher. That will
boil down to: which is more important, simplicity or efficiency?
There is a trend-- efficiency is getting to be a non-issue because of
modern computers getting so powerful, simplicity is getting more and more
important in this world of ever increasing complexity.
Jerry Story
9. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 01, 2001
From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
>
> I never studied marketing and I know nothing about marketing, but as I
> understand, there are two main rules of marketing:
>
> 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
> 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
>
> Maybe I'm stupid and ignorant, but that's my theory of marketing.
Those are reasonable conclusions, and all else being equal, they would be
true. However, there are some other overriding factors: Here are a couple of
examples:
In our area (Georgia) Coca-Cola 'owns' the grocery and convenience store
shelves.
No matter where you go, if you buy a soft drink, it's a Coca-Cola product.
When I drive into Tennessee, I see 'other' brands of soft drinks. Some of
these
are good - better than Coke - and I buy some to take home.
Now, if these soft drinks were available on the store shelves, people might
just
like them and buy them. But they aren't, so they don't.
Secondly, advertising is a very powerful tool. Do you really think people
would
go to McDonald's if they didn't advertise continually on TV?
Likewise, in the computer world, Euphoria and all other languages are
competing against Microsoft, which does own the store shelves and the
computer screens, and does a good
job of advertising.
The only advertising Rob can afford is word-of-mouth, but even that may not
work.
I had thought that I might introduce Euphoria to some of the local
user-groups, but then had second thoughts. No matter how slick a demo I
might put together, someone is sure to ask "can it connect to the net?" or
any number of other questions that I would have to answer with
a 'no'. Other than 32 bit capability, Euphoria offers little that wasn't
available 15 years ago
with Borland's turbo pascal. In fact, that grizzled old language has some
features that Euphoria
would do well to emulate.
Regards,
Irv
10. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net
Jul 01, 2001
On 1 Jul 2001, at 13:33, Ted Fines wrote:
>
> > In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than
> windows.Problem is, there
> > is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
> admit multitasking
> > those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide
> usmultitasking and
> > a nice gui,,,, what happened?
>
> What happened is Linux. It is free, has all of the command-line
> functionality, and a LOT more, than DOS, is multitasking, is open-source,
> fast, reliable, stable, and so on.
>
> Stop lamenting DOS and make the switch to Linux. If you're used to, and
> even enjoy, command-line functionality, you won't miss DOS a bit once you
> make the switch.
I am sure i would still miss dos if i went to linux. For one thing, i'd miss
having a
working computer. Dos was reliable. Most people online i know who have used
linux
for years still haveto reboot every day, at least every week. Unless i crash
winsock or
the modem vxd, i don't reboot but every 2 weeks in win95,, and i found dos to be
even
more stable. Especially since i was into dos enough to be modifying the PSP of
my
programs, calling the memory manager api's, writing my own ramdrive, and other
such
things. I wish i could afford the drdos docs, i'd install it in a heartbeat.
I did several Redhat 6.x installs, the puter never was useable, and atm won't
get thru
booting before it locks up.
Kat
11. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net
Jul 01, 2001
On 1 Jul 2001, at 13:41, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
>
> > On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> > > From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
>
> > In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows.
> Problem is, there
> > is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
> admit multitasking
> > those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us
> multitasking and
> > a nice gui,,,, what happened?
>
> My guess is, no demand. However, if you would like to try to
> sell your own, they have the source code up for sale:)
Is it still $600+ ?
Kat
12. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net
Jul 01, 2001
On 1 Jul 2001, at 16:04, jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> I figure Euphoria probably will eventually make Basic obsolete, because
> it seems to me Basic has nothing on Euphoria.
Basic has a "goto" !!
Kat
13. Re: The Euphorian Way
----- Original Message -----
From: <jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: The Euphorian Way
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>
> > If there are enough people using a language, the support
> > will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> > language?
>
> I never studied marketing and I know nothing about marketing, but as I
> understand, there are two main rules of marketing:
>
> 1. Between unequal products, the better one wins.
>
> 2. Between equal products, the first one wins.
>
> Rule number one requires explanation. The idea of "better" is a complex
> idea. Better for what purpose? Different customers have different
> purposes. Which is the better clock? The one that tells time to within a
> second per week instead of a second per day? The one that has more
> readable numbers? The one that is luminous at night? The one that you
> can wear on your wrist? The one that is big enough so you can put it on
> the wall and everyone can see it? The one that tells the day of the week
> and the month and the date and the phases of the moon? The one that
> doesn't need to be wound up? The one that doesn't depend on electricity?
> Complex idea. Depends on the customer's purposes. Better means something
> different for different people. But, keeping this explanation of "better"
> in mind, the better product wins. It is no contradiction to say that a
> bunch of products can all be better, each in its own way, each for
> different customers.
>
> Maybe I'm stupid and ignorant, but that's my theory of marketing.
>
> I figure Euphoria probably will eventually make Basic obsolete, because
> it seems to me Basic has nothing on Euphoria.
> The contest between Euphoria and C/C++/C# will be tougher. That will
> boil down to: which is more important, simplicity or efficiency?
> There is a trend-- efficiency is getting to be a non-issue because of
> modern computers getting so powerful, simplicity is getting more and more
> important in this world of ever increasing complexity.
>
> Jerry Story
>
> It's NOT a question of which is the better language Basic or Euphoria. It
is
a question which of the two is better marketed!. How much we all "hate"
Microsoft,
they sure know how to market Basic, therefore Euphoria will never replace
Basic.
Fritz
>
>
>
14. Re: The Euphorian Way
----- Original Message -----
From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
Subject: Re: The Euphorian Way
>
>
>
> On 1 Jul 2001, at 13:33, Ted Fines wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than
> > windows.Problem is, there
> > > is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i
> > admit multitasking
> > > those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide
> > usmultitasking and
> > > a nice gui,,,, what happened?
> >
> > What happened is Linux. It is free, has all of the command-line
> > functionality, and a LOT more, than DOS, is multitasking, is
open-source,
> > fast, reliable, stable, and so on.
> >
> > Stop lamenting DOS and make the switch to Linux. If you're used to, and
> > even enjoy, command-line functionality, you won't miss DOS a bit once
you
> > make the switch.
>
> I am sure i would still miss dos if i went to linux. For one thing, i'd
miss having a
> working computer. Dos was reliable. Most people online i know who have
used linux
> for years still haveto reboot every day, at least every week. Unless i
crash winsock or
> the modem vxd, i don't reboot but every 2 weeks in win95,, and i found dos
to be even
> more stable. Especially since i was into dos enough to be modifying the
PSP of my
> programs, calling the memory manager api's, writing my own ramdrive, and
other such
> things. I wish i could afford the drdos docs, i'd install it in a
heartbeat.
>
> I did several Redhat 6.x installs, the puter never was useable, and atm
won't get thru
> booting before it locks up.
>
> Kat
>
> Seems to me, you're at fault here. Never had any problems with installing
Linux, be it Redhat, Suse or Mandrake !
Fritz
>
>
>
15. Re: The Euphorian Way
----- Original Message -----
From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
Subject: Re: The Euphorian Way
>
>
>
> On 1 Jul 2001, at 16:04, jstory at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >
> > I figure Euphoria probably will eventually make Basic obsolete,
because
> > it seems to me Basic has nothing on Euphoria.
>
> Basic has a "goto" !!
>
> Kat
So what......?
Fritz
>
>
>
>
>
16. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 02, 2001
On Monday 02 July 2001 00:21, Ray Smith wrote:
> 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!
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?
<snip>
> 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.
So would I. That would help make Euphoria look legitimate.
I have some custom solutions I could contribute, screen dumps
and descriptions only. No source.
> 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?
If it weren't for people continually lobbying for improvements, would there
be any?
If you, and others, go away for 6 months, when you come back don't
be surprised if you find things just the way you left them.
Regards,
Irv
17. Re: The Euphorian Way
Irv Mullins writes:
> I'm quite sure that Rob doesn't make much from Euphoria sales
> - maybe enough to pay for a two-week vacation each year.
Well, I'm not getting rich, but at least I can say this:
* Euphoria sales have increased every year
since version 1.0 was released in 1993.
* The best sales month in history was June 2001 (last month)
* RDS just renewed the RapidEuphoria.com domain
for 9 more years. (the maximum term offered by Network Solutions)
> The only advertising Rob can afford is word-of-mouth,
> but even that may not work.
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.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
18. Re: The Euphorian Way
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Jul 02, 2001
----- 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
19. Re: The Euphorian Way
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. Source code is very=
valuable,
and Mr. Bill Gates knows this all to well. Why do you think he=
will
not release the source to any of his products?
He knows it is almost impossible to protect Copyrighted source=
code. This is true, look it up. If someone got their hands on the=
sourcecode of Microsoft Word, then changed the look and feel,=
but
used most of the source, Mr. Gates would be out of luck.
Example: A
lets say this piece of code is Copyrighted
setText( YourText,"Example")<----------------Copyrighted
-----
Example: B
Now lets say I want to use this, but not get sued.
constant
Ex =3D "Example"
setText(MyText,Ex)
They both do the same thing, but slightly different code.
This slight difference voids Example: A Copyrights.
This only applies to programming and source code.
Reason:
It has been decided 70 - 80 % of the code we use is recycled code=
to
begin with. Many of the software products in existence use much=
of
the same code. That is why you see very little Software Copyright=
Infringement Lawsuits. A half competent lawyer could discredit=
any
Copyright infringement lawsuit.
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.
Christopher Bouzy
President/CEO
