1. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
> > Do you think that Eu is... developed enough to catch the
> > attention of the programming community as a whole?
>
> No way. Compare it with Python, for example. Python
> was invented in 1990. Now there are many books, and
> tens (or hundreds) of thousands of users, including
> some significant projects at Google, Industrial
> Light+Magic, Four11, NASA.....
>
> Euphoria isn't even in the running.
Irv, seems like you are suggesting that in order for a language to be
"in the running" requires that it have many books published about it and
many thousands of users, and some significant projects by high-quality
named corporations.
I'm guessing Python didn't have all those starting out in 1990, and look
where it is today. Sure, EUPHORIA was released in 1993, but it doesn't
have the "backing" that Python has.
Regardless, EUPHORIA is one of the best work horses out there.
2. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
> Euphoria has had nearly as much time as Python to develop a
> following. It hasn't.
This cannot be blamed on the language, however. That's like saying the
Amiga died because it was inferior to IBM DOS or Wintel boxes. WRONG!
It's a little word called "marketing" and "sales." Oops, that's two
words.
> Euler's request was for a book about
> Euphoria, and I can't see any publisher taking a chance on
> there being a market for a Euphoria book, when there are so
> many much more popular languages out there to write about.
Agreed. But, again, it's the market that's a concern here, not the
product.
> Python was started by one guy, just like Euphoria.
> As far as I know, no money was spent to promote it.
Then we need to hire that guy to promote EUPHORIA, 'cuz Rob sucks at it.
;) (No offense Rob. You've got a great product!)
> If it now has more "backing" than Euphoria, why is that?
See my comment above.
> Why does O'Reilly publish books about Python?
Because there's a market for it. Not because Python is superior.
> Why do people pay for seminars and training classes in Python?
ditto
> Apparently because a fairly large
> number of people find Python useful.
That's like saying "a fairly large number of people find Windows
useful." Well, yes, they do... but they've been duped into accepting a
sub-standard piece of crap OS. And that's a function of... You guessed
it! MARKETING!!!
> Equally apparently, a much smaller number must find Euphoria
> useful, otherwise we'd have the seminars and books as well.
Bad logic. :)
3. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Irv Mullins wrote:
> Euphoria has had nearly as much time as Python to develop a following.
> It hasn't. Euler's request was for a book about Euphoria, and I can't
> see
> any publisher taking a chance on there being a market for a Euphoria
> book,
> when there are so many much more popular languages out there to write
> about.
> > I'm guessing Python didn't have all those starting out in 1990, and look
> > where it is today. Sure, EUPHORIA was released in 1993, but it doesn't
> > have the "backing" that Python has.
>
> Python was started by one guy, just like Euphoria.
> As far as I know, no money was spent to promote it.
> If it now has more "backing" than Euphoria, why is that?
> Why does O'Reilly publish books about Python?
> Why do people pay for seminars and training classes in Python?
>
> Apparently because a fairly large number of people find Python useful.
>
> > Regardless, EUPHORIA is one of the best work horses out there.
>
> Equally apparently, a much smaller number must find Euphoria useful,
> otherwise we'd have the seminars and books as well.
There are two main reasons why Python is hugely successful and Euphoria
is not:
* Python is open source – although one guy is primarily responsible
many people do input into the language design and implementation.
The fact that it’s open source also develops a stronger feeling of
community and an increased level of participation. I’m not asking
Rob to open source Euphoria but if he did it would bring literally
hundreds of users aboard, of which maybe a dozen or so would
create/improve current libraries, produce more software, write
tutorials and books etc etc. Python has been lucky in the fact that
it has had commercial backing from the vert start. Python started
to help perform some business or educational task at a large
institution. The institution was generous enough to let the author
open source the project. Companies pay money for the author to
further develop the product. I can’t see any company doing this for
Euphoria. At least not in the short to medium term.
* Python is Object Oriented. It has a rich set of language features
and native data structures that make using Python for large multi
developer development easier. A lot of the little arguments that go
on here in the Euphoria world just aren’t issues in the Python world.
In Euphoria's defence it is small, fast and slim. Three words that
have never been mentioned about Python.
In the end if your not happy with Euphoria you can either help
make it better or go somewhere else. Everyone has a choice.
Ray Smith
http://www.geocities.com/ray_223
4. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
encephalon1 at msn.com wrote:
>
> Do you think that Eu is far enough along in the development process,
> though? From browsing through this list for some time
> now, I have gathered that there are still a few features missing that
> make the language a little less 'competitive' than a
> few other more established language; of course, there are numerous
> advantages as well. The language is functional, but is it
> developed enough to catch the attention of the programming community as
> a whole?
Well, I think so. For example, our library at college had a book about
S-Lisp....
S-Lisp was an EXTREMELY simplified, purely functional version of Lisp. I
think it only existed on the floppy disk that came with the book. It had
almost no practical value--only a simple display ability for all I/O,
less than two dozen keywords if I remember correctly. It was basically
just a chance to understand some of the core concepts of Lisp and of
functional programming in a neat, tidy environment. I had a lot of fun
with it; actually, I wouldn't mind getting a copy of the book for
myself, thinking back about it.
Surely, if a book like that can sell, one on Euphoria would probably do
at least as well--especially with the fact that Euphoria is actually
in-use.
Rod Jackson
5. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
encephalon1 at msn.com wrote:
>
> I don't believe he's claiming the Eu is a bad product, just that it
> doesn't have the level of support to justify writing a book about it (in
> the publishers eyes). I agree with him; I think more use would come of
> writing software which showcases the abilities of Euphoria than writing
a book that will go unpublished, at least on paper. In my experience,
people usually learn the basics of a language before they buy a book
about it. I think the documentation that comes with the iterpreter, as
well as this forum, is quite enough information and support until there
are more Eu programmers.
Again, I'm not sure about this. I know I've learned many a language just
from books. Not enough that now, years later, I can sit and code in them
(like I would be able to had I been able to work with them), but enough
to understand core concepts and how they differ from other languages.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone tries it. 
Rod Jackson
6. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Rod Jackson wrote:
> I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone tries it.
I'm thinking of having a crack at writing an Introductory eBook
about programming in Euphoria.
I'm just putting some ideas down about what topics to cover
etc. No solid ideas yet except that no programming experience
will be required and it won't go into any advanced topics.
If C.K's out there I'd love to get some writing tips from a
professional!
Ray Smith
http://www.geocities.com/ray_223
7. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
> If C.K's out there I'd love to get some writing tips from a
> professional!
Anybody can send his/her manuscript to my email and I'll gladly review
it. :)
8. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
I don't think Irv thinks EUPHORIA is a bad product, either. He would not
have been here for so long if he thought it was useless (right, Irv?). I
believe, however, that writing a book CAN give credibility to a
language. Notice I said can... it has to be written properly,
appropriate, accessible, etc...
I, too, agree that more software that showcases EUPHORIA is a far better
effort than writing a book. However, I believe there's a market, albeit
small, where a well-written book on EUPHORIA would do very well.
9. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Irv Mullins wrote:
> I don't use Python, but I'm planning to do so.
> From what I've seen so far, Python seems to be quite a bit
> more complete than Euphoria.
>From what I've seen, Python is a pain in the buttocks.
whitespace! pathetic.
indexes start at zero?! {1,2,3}[1] = 2! stupid.
immutability and mutability of certain types? dumb.
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0238.html <-- not fun
underscores! awful.
iterators and generators: BLOAT!
At 7MB (just for the download), it better do something worthwhile!
Excellent analysis of Python's flaws, which I'd like to see
for EUPHORIA, can be found at
http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/warts.html
> It's more internet-friendly -
That would be nice. EUPHORIA?! Wake up!
> ftp, mail, http connections are dead simple.
Give it to me, baby!!!
> it's object oriented
Who cares? not me! Don't get me wrong: someday I might care about OO.
Right now, however, it offers me nothing I need.
> and has a real exception handling mechanism.
That's a good thing. Right?
> It is interactive, so you can try out
> code snippets from the command line.
A nice convenience.
> If runs on Linux, Windows, DOS, OS/2, Mac, Amiga, maybe others.
Major plus here.
> You can see for yourself http://python.org
It's also FREE.
I'm not convinced that it's "better" than EUPHORIA. Maybe as an idea,
you can explain (or point me to opinions) how programming Python apps
for MS Windows would be easier/better/more efficient.
10. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Irv Mullins wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 February 2002 01:27 pm, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> I didn't say it was better. I said it was more complete.
okay, gotcha.
But, in according to my finite viewpoint, anything that is "more
complete" is "better."
Of course, then we get into the argument that C++ is more complete than
C, but who would say C++ is better. PLUS, it depends on the context (as
you've demonstrated below).
> If I should need an app which can connect to a website, search for
> some keyword(s) and download a page, I know that it can be done in
> Python, with just a handful of lines of code, and it will work.
> Can I say the same thing about Euphoria?
No. My questions is, "Why can't you?" Is it because the language can't
handle it? Or is it because nobody (including Rob) has done an include
file for it? This goes for your graphics/GUI contexts as well...
Rob?
> If you want to see a list of organizations using Python for
> significant projects, look here:
> http://www.python.org/psa/Users.html
Yes, that will help! Thanks.
> I'm not promoting Python, I'm trying, unsuccessfully
> it seems, to get Euphoria to grow into a complete
> programming language - or at least one which can't be
> immediately discarded as inappropriate for
> whatever task is at hand. I'm not the only one who
> has tried this, the others just gave up and moved on
> long ago.
Most users are on your side, I would bet. The problem(s) is/are:
1. EUPHORIA is not open source, like Python, so it doesn't
have the luxury of a world of developers.
2. EUPHORIA is not free.
3. EUPHORIA is not as cross-platform compatible.
The solution(s) is/are:
1. Convince Rob to go open source.
2. Convince Rob to make it free.
3. Convince Rob to develop for other platforms.
Item 3 would be much easier with item 1 completed... :)
Also, EUPHORIA can be the "complete programming" language you desire.
How much can you (or anybody else) contribute to that?
11. RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Irv Mullins wrote:
> If I should need an app which can connect to a website, search for
> some keyword(s) and download a page, I know that it can be done in
> Python, with just a handful of lines of code, and it will work.
> Can I say the same thing about Euphoria?
Yes, euTcp4u. From memory I think there was a WININET.DLL version to.
> So, if my needs include anything to do with the internet, then, yes,
> Python is better. Because it is more complete.
As far as I cam remember there are libraries for TCP comms, FTP and
SMTP.
I know they aren't as fully developed as the Python libs but still
very useful.
I know this was just one example Irv and in princible I agree with
your point of view.
> If I need to do some graphics, or a GUI, then objects (not the Euphoria
> kind)
> make the task much easier.
> Pascal has 'em, C++ has 'em, Python has 'em,
> Euphoria doesn't. So which would be "better"?
When you get down to actually writing programs with the Python GUI's
you start to realise that Euphoria isn't that far behind.
It's not easy!
Classes are a very nice feature of a language. I can't see how
implementing classes would break any existing Euphoria code.
I have no idea how difficult it would be for Rob to implement but
I for one think it would be a good step.
Saying that I can't see Rob doing it.
>I'm not the only one who has tried this, the
> others just gave up and moved on long ago.
One point to consider is the number of languages available is huge
and they are all improving all the time.
You can download full C / C++ / Pascal / Python / Java languages
with integrated IDE's and full on screen debugging completely free.
There are numerous free resources for newbie's (and the not so
newbies's) to refer to. It's tough to convince someone to use one
language over another.
Ray Smith
http://www.geocities.com/ray_223
