1. GOTO - A fresh perspective?
- Posted by doc at edgetap.net
Feb 10, 2002
Hi all,
I will try and keep this short although I feel like writing volumes!
First a short history: early last year I came across Euphoria and was
(almost) gobsmacked at the flexibilty it seemed to offer. So I
downloaded and set to work writing an test program for doing OpenGL
graphics. Within days I had networking and had two machines with
synchronised displays. The exercise showed me that Euphoria was very
capable but, given the effort needed to "hook-in" dll's and to work
around somethings I had come to take for granted in most languages, I
decided to shelf Euphoria for the time being. I have kept up with the
news in the interim though and last week thought it was nearly time to
revisit Euphoria with the 2.3 release.
Back to the present and to get reacquainted I subscibed to Topica only
to get bombarded with emails arguing for/against "Goto". First, I would
like to say that my general impression of everyone using this forum is
that you are all pretty intelligent, thoughtful and considerate, if not
agreeable, in your replies. However, this makes it all the more
difficult for me to figure why you seem to be adopting language-centric
arguments in your debate rather than accepting that if a feature helps
someone do something easier then it is intrinsically "good" for them, if
not for you personally. From this it is obvious that I consider a
programming language as nothing more than a tool and that the programmer
is THE most important factor in the overall equation. I am well aware of
the main argument against the use of Goto regarding bad design but I
would say that if a program is going to be badly designed then GoTo will
make little if any difference. On the plus side if it allows the
programmer to get where they are going quicker and be in the position to
sit back, appreciate their results, THEN to ponder and reassess their
code design, then that programmer will become a better programmer more
quickly than the one still struggling to overcome the (possibly
misconceived) limitations of the language. FYI I totally agree the
liberal use of GoTo is indicative of lazy design... and I use it
liberally while testing my *well-designed* code then remove them all
when finalising the design. Bluntly, it is the programmer who is
important not the language, and it is the programmer who should be given
the choice and the decision should not be made for him/her by other
people who have no use for a feature.
And my final point (phew!): With the 2.3 release I was on the verge of
buying Euphoria but, and please correct me if I am wrong, did someone
from RapidEuphoria say "not for a million bucks!"? This does not suggest
a very customer oriented approach and smacks of an almost elitist
"ownership" type mentality. This may explain why in the year since I
first looked at Euphoria much of it's potential is still untapped and
apparently ignored by the programming community as a whole. I may still
buy it but my decision will definately be influenced by replies to this
post. RapidEuphoria giving Kat, at least, the choice to use GoTo without
going through hoops will of course make the decision a no-brainer 
PS: Where have all the developers with big plans, eg, X/OpenGL-wrappers,
gone? Seriously, no one planning DirectX 7/8 wrappers?
2. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
On Sunday 10 February 2002 11:38 am, doc at edgetap.net wrote:
<snipped>
> Bluntly, it is the programmer who is
> important not the language, and it is the programmer who should be given
> the choice and the decision should not be made for him/her by other
> people who have no use for a feature.
Absolutely true. Even as things stand now, there are a lot of features that
I don't use, because I have no need for them. The same is probably true
of everyone else here as well, except that the list of features we don't use
differs for each one of us. If we use Euphoria for a task, it's because it
HAS a feature we need, not because it DOESN'T HAVE a feature we don't need.
> And my final point (phew!): With the 2.3 release I was on the verge of
> buying Euphoria but, and please correct me if I am wrong, did someone
> from RapidEuphoria say "not for a million bucks!"? This does not suggest
> a very customer oriented approach and smacks of an almost elitist
> "ownership" type mentality. This may explain why in the year since I
> first looked at Euphoria much of it's potential is still untapped and
> apparently ignored by the programming community as a whole. I may still
> buy it but my decision will definately be influenced by replies to this
> post. RapidEuphoria giving Kat, at least, the choice to use GoTo without
> going through hoops will of course make the decision a no-brainer
This is going to sound harsh, and maybe I'm totally off base, but Rob gives
the impression that he is tired of Euphoria, or has other things that
interest him more.
Look at the long time it took to add the rather insignificant namespace
improvement. Ok, it is a answer to the initial problem of name collisions,
but it certainly lacks the spark of originality that went into some other
features of Euphoria. IOW, he could have done so much more with that,
but apparently now lacks the incentive to make any significant changes.
Changes which, as you say, would make Euphoria more acceptable to the larger
programming community.
Hope I'm wrong about this.
Regards,
Irv
3. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Well said.
-------
Derek
----- Original Message -----
From: <doc at edgetap.net>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I will try and keep this short although I feel like writing volumes!
> First a short history: early last year I came across Euphoria and was
> (almost) gobsmacked at the flexibilty it seemed to offer. So I
> downloaded and set to work writing an test program for doing OpenGL
> graphics. Within days I had networking and had two machines with
> synchronised displays. The exercise showed me that Euphoria was very
> capable but, given the effort needed to "hook-in" dll's and to work
> around somethings I had come to take for granted in most languages, I
> decided to shelf Euphoria for the time being. I have kept up with the
> news in the interim though and last week thought it was nearly time to
> revisit Euphoria with the 2.3 release.
>
> Back to the present and to get reacquainted I subscibed to Topica only
> to get bombarded with emails arguing for/against "Goto". First, I would
> like to say that my general impression of everyone using this forum is
> that you are all pretty intelligent, thoughtful and considerate, if not
> agreeable, in your replies. However, this makes it all the more
> difficult for me to figure why you seem to be adopting language-centric
> arguments in your debate rather than accepting that if a feature helps
> someone do something easier then it is intrinsically "good" for them, if
> not for you personally. From this it is obvious that I consider a
> programming language as nothing more than a tool and that the programmer
> is THE most important factor in the overall equation. I am well aware of
> the main argument against the use of Goto regarding bad design but I
> would say that if a program is going to be badly designed then GoTo will
> make little if any difference. On the plus side if it allows the
> programmer to get where they are going quicker and be in the position to
> sit back, appreciate their results, THEN to ponder and reassess their
> code design, then that programmer will become a better programmer more
> quickly than the one still struggling to overcome the (possibly
> misconceived) limitations of the language. FYI I totally agree the
> liberal use of GoTo is indicative of lazy design... and I use it
> liberally while testing my *well-designed* code then remove them all
> when finalising the design. Bluntly, it is the programmer who is
> important not the language, and it is the programmer who should be given
> the choice and the decision should not be made for him/her by other
> people who have no use for a feature.
>
> And my final point (phew!): With the 2.3 release I was on the verge of
> buying Euphoria but, and please correct me if I am wrong, did someone
> from RapidEuphoria say "not for a million bucks!"? This does not suggest
> a very customer oriented approach and smacks of an almost elitist
> "ownership" type mentality. This may explain why in the year since I
> first looked at Euphoria much of it's potential is still untapped and
> apparently ignored by the programming community as a whole. I may still
> buy it but my decision will definately be influenced by replies to this
> post. RapidEuphoria giving Kat, at least, the choice to use GoTo without
> going through hoops will of course make the decision a no-brainer
>
> PS: Where have all the developers with big plans, eg, X/OpenGL-wrappers,
> gone? Seriously, no one planning DirectX 7/8 wrappers?
>
>
>
>
4. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Hi Irv,
----------
> Îò: Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
> Êîìó: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> Òåìà: Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
> Äàòà: Sunday, February 10, 2002 20:29
<snipped>
> > Bluntly, it is the programmer who is
> > important not the language, and it is the programmer
> > who should be given
> > the choice and the decision should not be made for
> > him/her by other
> > people who have no use for a feature.
> Absolutely true. Even as things stand now, there are
> a lot of features that I don't use, because I have
> no need for them. The same is probably true
> of everyone else here as well, except that the list of
> features we don't use differs for each one of us.
> If we use Euphoria for a task, it's because it
> HAS a feature we need, not because it DOESN'T HAVE
> a feature we don't need.
If you'll visit http://www.RapidEuphoria.com/contract.htm
then you can see that RDS is ready to make the custom programming
in Euphoria. There are no any restrictions on the thematic of that
custom programming. If you want Euphoria program for yourself then
contact RDS and you are all set.
I do not think RDS have some super_Euphoria for their own needs.
Same as there are no super_Watcom for WATCOM etc.
So, I think, RDS can make all you want in Euphoria.
If you can not make all you want in Euphoria for youself,
ask RDS for the ready program, pay money, get pack.
What a problem ? What feature you are asking for ?
> > And my final point (phew!): With the 2.3 release I was on the verge of
> > buying Euphoria but, and please correct me if I am wrong, did someone
> > from RapidEuphoria say "not for a million bucks!"?
I didn't see "not for a million bucks!", I saw:
----
Euler German writes:
> Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> Hello Rob! Your time now!
I've stated many times in the past that I am
firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
(real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
----
As I can understand the broken Rob's Russian, he says,
million on the table, and GOTO from RDS is yours, no ?
If free Euphoria, which RDS use for their own needs, is too
bad for your tasks, you can get custom-built language,
not Euphoria, for $1000000.
Very good price. And I can say, too cheap.
> > This does not suggest a very customer oriented approach and smacks
> > of an almost elitist "ownership" type mentality. This may explain why
> > in the year since I first looked at Euphoria much of it's potential
> > is still untapped and apparently ignored by the programming community
> > as a whole.
1. I think, Euphoria community is just programming community, not
agricultural or somthing.
Read please list's archive for some last years.
2. You can get (for free) intepreter for 3 main platforms and
translator Euphoria to 6 different free C languages from RDS.
What do you want more for free ? There are 900 packages
by 300 authors (with sources) in The RDS Archive.
(Look for Basic examples in Simtel archive on 1995..2000 years. 
3. You can get (for very low price) professional power of RDS own tools.
4. You can get (for laughable low price) main source code of Euphoria
and make your own language like to Euphoria, maybe better, good luck.
> > I may still buy it but my decision will definately be
> > influenced by replies to this post.
> > RapidEuphoria giving Kat, at least, the choice to use GoTo without
> > going through hoops will of course make the decision a no-brainer
> This is going to sound harsh, and maybe I'm totally off base,
> but Rob gives the impression that he is tired of Euphoria, or has
> other things that interest him more.
>
> Look at the long time it took to add the rather insignificant
> namespace improvement. Ok, it is a answer to the initial problem
> of name collisions, but it certainly lacks the spark of originality
> that went into some other
> features of Euphoria. IOW, he could have done so much more with that,
> but apparently now lacks the incentive to make any significant changes.
> Changes which, as you say, would make Euphoria more acceptable to the
> larger programming community.
>
> Hope I'm wrong about this.
Yes, Irv, you are wrong, I think.
Namespaces for 6 different implementations of translator and 6 different
implementations of source code and two-pass binder and bug fixes and ...
see please relnotes.doc ...
It is not too bad. No, it is not too bad. It is VERY VERY good, no?
Who can do more than Rob for such short time?
Pay for source and go to do, GOOD LUCK !!!
Or welcome from scratch with NEWPHORIA.
Try please to notice *significant changes* in C, for example.
The main hindrances for the better Euphoria are in ... the
old bugs in different C's just now, not some absent
Euphoria's feature in the future.
Well.
Hey, ALL, look for a good programming language (interpretator)
in the World. I do not need the best, just good enough
for my task, which is asking for:
a language:
must be much much faster than ANY other interpreter on ANY machine,
must work on DOS from 3.30 without ANY&ALL DOS restrictions,
must work on DOS with the speed of compiled 2 different C,
must work on ANY Windows with the speed of compiled 3 different C,
must work on Linux from 5.2 with the speed of compiled GNU program,
must have IDE better than Delphy on Windows,
must manage with Internet tasks,
must be simpler than GWBasic,
must fit in 1 floppy,
must work on ANY machine, from a 386 with one floppy drive without HD,
must be free of charge with all that power,
must have available source code.
What language I am talking about ?
Am I crazy ?
No, I am not crazy.
It is just our young EUPHORIA ...
You didn't know, yes ? Oh, welcome !
Irv, you do know very well, I know that you know,
I'm sorry, my question is not to you, OK ?
But I'm sorry at all too. Just I think EU
is much better than other languages for any
modern task and has many exclusive features,
which are just absent in all other languages.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
5. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Hi Igor:
On 11 Feb 2002, at 0:06, Igor Kachan wrote:
>
-<snip>-
>
> Hey, ALL, look for a good programming language (interpretator)
> in the World. I do not need the best, just good enough
> for my task, which is asking for:
>
> a language:
> must be much much faster than ANY other interpreter on ANY machine,
> must work on DOS from 3.30 without ANY&ALL DOS restrictions,
> must work on DOS with the speed of compiled 2 different C,
> must work on ANY Windows with the speed of compiled 3 different C,
> must work on Linux from 5.2 with the speed of compiled GNU program,
> must have IDE better than Delphy on Windows,
> must manage with Internet tasks,
> must be simpler than GWBasic,
> must fit in 1 floppy,
> must work on ANY machine, from a 386 with one floppy drive without HD,
> must be free of charge with all that power,
> must have available source code.
>
-<snip>-
100% with you. That's why I'm right here. Sorry boys and girls but I'll be on
Rob's side. If we're talking about taking a position, well I took mine. Period.
Next we'll start talking about regulations, similarities, dialects and so on.
Maybe in ten years we'll have ANSI Euphoria which means that you'll have a
possibility to migrate your code to and fro another EUbrand.
-<snip>-
>
> But I'm sorry at all too. Just I think EU
> is much better than other languages for any
> modern task and has many exclusive features,
> which are just absent in all other languages.
>
-<snip>-
I want to stick my fork on this meat just a bit. I did not bought Euphoria from
RDS *yet* for one single reason: I'm old fashioned enough to have a *need*
(very badly) of a textbook! I have a *need* to touch paper while I read (ok, is
just for learning) but there's nothing I can do about.
Ok, you'll may come and say: go to Eu docs and read it! Well, I did. As a
matter of fact I have all printed in paper. They are very good but they do not
*teach* Euphoria. I'm not sure if you all can understand what I mean. Maybe it
seems weird but I warned before: I'm very old-fashioned.
So this is it: I read that if I want a GOTO I'll have to pay this and if I want
a pass-by-reference, that or I can buy source from RDS and do what I like
(maybe I'd call it Anarchya, maybe Hystheria), but who cares!?! IMO, it won't
worth.
I'll keep asking for a book. Go ahead boys and girls! Show me how good you are!
Show me your tricks and skills! Show me all that jazz and I'll pay you far more
them I'll pay Rob for Euphoria. You can make much more money from a good book
them for a possibly GOTO...
Cheers!
-- Euler
6. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
On Sunday 10 February 2002 06:15 pm, Euler German wrote:
>
> I'll keep asking for a book. Go ahead boys and girls! Show me how good you
> are! Show me your tricks and skills! Show me all that jazz and I'll pay you
> far more them I'll pay Rob for Euphoria. You can make much more money from
> a good book them for a possibly GOTO...
Sorry, but the cost of manufacturing a book is just too high.
If there were 100,000 Euphoria users, then there might be enough market
to convince O'Riley or someone to try a book. For small runs, the cost
would be so great no one would buy it.
Someone could post a book on the internet, so that you could print your own
copy, but then they would be doing a lot of work for free, so I don't think
that's going to happen either.
Regards,
Irv
7. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 10, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
>
>I bet Euman or Karl makes Eu threaded first too. Or execute vars or >files as
>if they had been proper global includes.
>
Hey Ms. Kat
Im still focusing on the source and it has occured to me that once I get a
Windows
source extraction that compiles/runs I can certainly go from there. I'll be
creating seperate compiler platformed sources (Bor, LCC, Wat)
(At present, Im doing this all by hand) What this will do is make it easier (for
me)
to follow the code without having to look at DOS and Linux code aswell.
What I want to do is have a version of Euphoria that doesnt rely on as much
C-Runtime
but instead API calls. This will make programs faster and much smaller.
DOS and Linux are not on my list of things to be concerned with simply because
of market shares for those O/S's and based on the amount of contributions in
Euphoria
being primarily Windows contributions, it naturally seems to be the best
way to go (monitarily speaking).
Threads are certainly a posibility Kat and I will have a go at making them work.
Dont hold your breathe though, it will take time before I have anything to show
but
show I will.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
8. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Irv Mullins writes:
> This is going to sound harsh, and maybe I'm totally off base,
> but Rob gives the impression that he is tired of Euphoria,
> or has other things that interest him more.
You are totally off base.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
9. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Euler German writes:
> I'll keep asking for a book. Go ahead boys and girls!
> Show me how good you are! Show me your tricks and skills!
> Show me all that jazz and I'll pay you far more them I'll pay
> Rob for Euphoria. You can make much more money from a
> good book them for a possibly GOTO...
Michael Packard is selling a book on
Euphoria game programming for $20 plus shipping.
http://www.berighteous.com/euphoria/
I used to sell the Reference Manual in book form.
You don't need a book publisher or a production run
of 100,000. I used to make batches of 20 Cerlox-bound
books at a time for about $5 U.S. each, then sold them for $15
plus shipping. I still have v2.0 (the last one) on my desk.
Junko and I just got tired of doing it.
Actually, she wanted to keep going, but
I wanted to spend less time at the print shop and the post office,
and more time programming. Also, it seemed silly in this
day and age to be shipping a bunch of paper half way
around the world, when the information is available for
free in electronic form, including hyper links.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
10. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Hi Irv:
On 10 Feb 2002, at 19:02, Irv Mullins wrote:
>
> Sorry, but the cost of manufacturing a book is just too high.
> If there were 100,000 Euphoria users, then there might be enough market
> to convince O'Riley or someone to try a book. For small runs, the cost
> would be so great no one would buy it.
>
This is terrible, I'm afraid. I'm quite confident that Euphoria will be on
limbo while languages it can surpass easily, by any means, will last. I'm not
sure if it's of RDS interest but if they *truly* believe in their product they
should put some money on it. An unknown product is a dead product. How could I
manage to (learn) teach Euphoria to others without books? Another question:
what will last after all of you get your own copy of Euphoria? Will RDS just
shut doors or would they last with a 50% income now and then? I just can't
accept that. Let me put this way: RDS need to make a big move. They must turn
Euphoria into a popular language. They have to convince someone with the
ability and skills to spread the word as it is not of their business to spred
the word. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands users aren't enough in a world
that counts in billions.
> Someone could post a book on the internet, so that you could print your own
> copy, but then they would be doing a lot of work for free, so I don't think
> that's going to happen either.
>
Well, could be an e-book, a lot cheaper than on paper. Could be done at home by
anyone with knowledge and writing skills. It could be made in PDF protected
mode and selled by the Net. I don't mind the media: paper or e-paper (I can
print it later), but I believe that information, to be valuable and
understandable, at least to the great majority of persons, must be compiled as
a book, not on information chunks.
I'm not talking on freework either. I'm ready to pay for it. I know that you
and others that are not newcomers like me don't need this, but you should
consider very much that you're quite alone. You have the knowledge but don't
have number. Without a minimum amount there will be no change, not enough
*mass* to sustain a chain reaction. This may change from euphoria to entropy.
Sorry if I'm so pessimist. Maybe I'm just on a bad day.
Warmest Regards,
-- Euler German
11. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Hello Rob,
I was on my way to bed when your mail came in, let's see it.
On 11 Feb 2002, at 0:53, Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> Michael Packard is selling a book on
> Euphoria game programming for $20 plus shipping.
> http://www.berighteous.com/euphoria/
>
I'm visited already Michael's page a time ago. I saw part of his work but it's
too specific. I'd rather look for something more generic that could be used to
build games as well as to develop commercial apps. Nothing against games but
they are not my kind of stuff.
> I used to sell the Reference Manual in book form.
> You don't need a book publisher or a production run
> of 100,000. I used to make batches of 20 Cerlox-bound
> books at a time for about $5 U.S. each, then sold them for $15
> plus shipping. I still have v2.0 (the last one) on my desk.
>
Well, I have your Reference Manual right here. It's a reference manual where I
can look into to have a reference. It can be valuable to someone who knows
already another language (I known, many others do) but should I tell a newbie
to go learn some Basic then tell him/her to come back later and try to learn
Euphoria from this reference manual!?!
> Junko and I just got tired of doing it.
> Actually, she wanted to keep going, but
> I wanted to spend less time at the print shop and the post office,
> and more time programming. Also, it seemed silly in this
> day and age to be shipping a bunch of paper half way
> around the world, when the information is available for
> free in electronic form, including hyper links.
>
I agree with you 100%. That is your job, what you know best. Please don't do
anything else. What I'm trying to make others than you and me understand is
that they could write about (Euphoria) what they know and make money doing it.
I'm sure you'll be very thankful if a textbook bring another bunch of brand new
customers to your door, won't you?
Well, I think I had enough for today, and today is already tomorrow, and I need
some sleep. Good night/Good day to all...
Kind Regards,
-- Euler German
12. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Kat is right, Eu would be better and could become more popular with a GOTO.
Btw. popularity is something that could be greatly improved by making it
more accessable for beginners, f.i. after install people want to see an easy
and friendly user interface. And clear examples ("for dummies") for
everything, from a simple "hello world" to creating and accessing DLL's.
<>
> dependancies!! What, there is a "main" and the program actually starts at
> the bottom of the page?? Sheesh, no one would use a language like that!
> Oh, but they do, they just rename the functionality and hide the details,
and
> force the user to learn the details of each new subset of the
functionality in
> the new syntax words, like "continue" and "exit". What's next, "break"?
> Maybe a "restart_loop()"? Changing the control vars in the "for" line?
> Parameters for "continue()"? No thanks, gimme the plain and simple "goto".
<>
> return nests of things, not one predefined thing. Giving us Lisp's
sequences
> with a Basic language syntax, that's Eu's claim to fame. Allowing better
flow
> control with a "goto", even more use of the sequences with exec(sequence
> s), threads, etc., can only make Eu better and more appealing to a wider
> audience.
>
> Kat
13. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 11, 2002
Hi all,
This is primarily for EULER.
You must be hitting a brick wall with something.
Is there anything you would like solved?
My experience with Euphoria has been that time is
the best medicine and trial an error are your best friend.
Experiment with something not yet accomplished in this
language and if it works then share it with the rest of us.
Asking questions on this list is very easy, you're already
typing quite well.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
14. Re: GOTO - A fresh perspective?
Hello Euman:
On 11 Feb 2002, at 9:35, euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is primarily for EULER.
>
> You must be hitting a brick wall with something.
> Is there anything you would like solved?
>
> My experience with Euphoria has been that time is
> the best medicine and trial an error are your best friend.
> Experiment with something not yet accomplished in this
> language and if it works then share it with the rest of us.
>
> Asking questions on this list is very easy, you're already
> typing quite well.
>
> Euman
> euman at bellsouth.net
>
Well, not really. I was just afraid of loosing my time. I'm not that young
anymore. To be honest, when a learned Basic at Neshaminy High (Langhorne, PA)
back in 1972, I could wait and see, I could try hard and loose, I could start
over and over a million times that I'd have the strength to do it.
At this very moment I could lay down and rest. My job is done, there's not much
more to do. I'm pretty satisfied. Then I knew through a country fellow (Davi
Figueiredo) that he was using a new language called Euphoria that could run
apps on three major platforms. It was like a sting. How come I've never heard
of such language. I got curious. I'm still curious. I just don't want to get
disappointed. That's it.
To make use of this list as you mentioned is okay for you but it's not that
much easy if you are not a true born English speaking person. As I told you
before, my English is from the early seventies when most of you were unborn.
There's also jargons that are unusual or just unintelligible to me. That's why
I personally (and many others, I'm sure) need a book so badly. Maybe I just
don't want to be a pain in the ass (if you know what I mean)...
I respect you and your judgement Euman. I know you're an expert. I can see your
enthusiasm when you talk on Euphoria. I'd like to have a tenth of your skills.
If you and people like you could put what you know on a book then you'll become
part of Euphoria history. Nothing is more important than sharing knowledge. The
difference in doing it as a book is as simple as: do you know of a person that
learned English by joining an English list? I think no. But of course you know
persons that improved their English by just joining English speaking list of
any kind -- including me!
Cheers! (I'm a lot happier now -- nothing better that a good nigh sleep)
-- Euler
