1. Euphoria questions
Hi Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS, replying to your letter dated Jumat, 1
Januari 1999...
> Euphoria is a bit faster, probably because it takes about half
> the code to accomplish the same thing as it does in Pascal.
Ehm? In most cases? Or in few cases?
> Shorter "include" files = quicker loading.
But anyways TP doesn't use "include files" = quicker execute. It just
uses compiled code all the way, and all the "slowdowns" are all in the
compiling process.
BTW why did RDS choose interpreted thing?
> Yes. I would not hesitate to write a major program in Euphoria.
> I may get a chance to do just that, because there are several
> businesses still using programs I wrote years ago (in TP) which
> I will need to update before the Y2K. Maybe I'll re-write some in
> Euphoria.
Hmm... After a few days working with Euphoria, I think it really seem
to make EVERYTHING simpler. Most of it won't allow us to do "hacks" or
things that are sometimes needed to do so... for example optimizing
code for that. And so, there's no pointer. So, what's the replacement?
I've been feeling very comfortable working with it.
And, what's a "record", or "struct", "union" in Euphoria? Moreover
there's no "object", "class", "interface", etc.
And how Euphoria will handle type mismatch? Even C/C++ will handle
type mismatch between HGDIOBJ and HWINDOW (even though it's the same
data type!)
Euphoria, don't forget to reply,
Hendy Irawan => Phone: +62 (354) 685866
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue.....
Try this...
THE Ultimate Programmers' Search Engine
http://developers.href.com
2. Re: Euphoria questions
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:31:32 +0700, Hendy Irawan <ceefour at INDO.NET.ID> wrote:
>Hi Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS, replying to your letter dated Jumat, 1
>Januari 1999...
>
>> Euphoria is a bit faster, probably because it takes about half
>> the code to accomplish the same thing as it does in Pascal.
>Ehm? In most cases? Or in few cases?
Most. Especially in programs of reasonable complexity - business
programs, for example.
>> Shorter "include" files = quicker loading.
>But anyways TP doesn't use "include files" = quicker execute. It just
>uses compiled code all the way, and all the "slowdowns" are all in the
>compiling process.
Exactly. That's why Euphoria is faster when writing and debugging code.
>BTW why did RDS choose interpreted thing?
Good question.
>> Yes. I would not hesitate to write a major program in Euphoria.
>> I may get a chance to do just that, because there are several
>> businesses still using programs I wrote years ago (in TP) which
>> I will need to update before the Y2K. Maybe I'll re-write some in
>> Euphoria.
>Hmm... After a few days working with Euphoria, I think it really seem
>to make EVERYTHING simpler. Most of it won't allow us to do "hacks" or
>things that are sometimes needed to do so... for example optimizing
>code for that. And so, there's no pointer. So, what's the replacement?
>I've been feeling very comfortable working with it.
Why do you need pointers? What hacks? Please give some examples.
>And, what's a "record", or "struct", "union" in Euphoria? Moreover
>there's no "object", "class", "interface", etc.
I think Euphoria should have structures, because they make code
clearer and easier to understand, and certainly make file i/o
easier.
You can implement objects and classes and VMT's if you want, but
after coding for 8 or 10 years using OO languages, I'm happy that
I am not required to use them in Euphoria.
>And how Euphoria will handle type mismatch? Even C/C++ will handle
>type mismatch between HGDIOBJ and HWINDOW (even though it's the same
>data type.
What type mismatch? You can define your own types in Euphoria, to make
them as strict as you want.
Irv
3. Re: Euphoria questions
Dear Mr. Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS, not forgetting a reply for your
letter...
> Most. Especially in programs of reasonable complexity - business
> programs, for example.
Really? Wouldn't you think the program would be unreasonably large???
I've seen a bound Eu program and it's way big because the source code
is inside. Yes, it's shrouded. But with any file viewer I can see the
source code clearly, giving me up the idea about the program flow,
etc.
Encrpyting? Come on, Eu doesn't use PGP, one decryptor and any Eu
program vulnerable.
I think this is different to Java where you can't see the source at
all. Almost like machine code. Even VB (hey, it's interpreted, too!)
> Exactly. That's why Euphoria is faster when writing and debugging code.
slower run-time. Most (99%) of me wants faster run-time.
I wonder if Eu can be duo, both compiled and interpreted. (!!!!)
>>BTW why did RDS choose interpreted thing?
> Good question.
So? No one?
> Why do you need pointers? What hacks? Please give some examples.
You know.... the standard stuff we really got used to in C++....
Mainly for code optimizing anyway.
BTW does using "machine code" actually make Eu programs faster? Doing
it means there still be interpreter which read the "machine code" then
interpret then do it. One instruction could be numerous instructions
with that!
> I think Euphoria should have structures, because they make code
> clearer and easier to understand, and certainly make file i/o
> easier.
> You can implement objects and classes and VMT's if you want, but
> after coding for 8 or 10 years using OO languages, I'm happy that
> I am not required to use them in Euphoria.
I'm not that happy. I think it's very convenient and even everything
around us is object-oriented. Kill the mouse. Catch the book. etc.
I wonder why they don't called SOP (Subject-Oriented Programming 
or maybe Predicate-Oriented Programming... *LOL*
Why RDS decided not to implement OOP? Did they think it's just
unnecessary or...... insufficient resources?
From time to time.... we're going to expect many lang enhancements.
Like Pascal which had evolved (caused by Borland's hands) to the great
ObjectPascal now used by Delphi, etc.
Who would do and approve such changes in Eu? RDS?
> What type mismatch? You can define your own types in Euphoria, to make
> them as strict as you want.
Hmm... I never used any custom types in Eu...
Reply it, type anything you want!
C4 - webmaster at ceefour.indoglobal.com
Any running program is obsolete.
People said, laptop computers will nibble away at the installed base of notebook
computers.
You can't miss this: MidMaze - Feature-packed multimedia player
http://cee4ware.home.ml.org/midmaze.html
4. Re: Euphoria questions
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:19:20 +0700, Hendy Irawan <ceefour at INDO.NET.ID> wrote:
>Dear Mr. Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS, not forgetting a reply for your
>letter...
>
>> Most. Especially in programs of reasonable complexity - business
>> programs, for example.
>Really? Wouldn't you think the program would be unreasonably large???
>I've seen a bound Eu program and it's way big because the source code
>is inside. Yes, it's shrouded. But with any file viewer I can see the
>source code clearly, giving me up the idea about the program flow,
>etc.
Really? Let me send you a shrouded program, and you tell me what it
does. No, the program isn't big because of the source code. Short
Euphoria programs are about 200,000 bytes because the entire run-time
code is included. Big Euphoria programs are only slightly larger.
Check the programs on RDS's site. Or, better, write a large program
in C++, Pascal, and Euphoria. Compile the C and Pascal. Then tell
use how large the files are.
>Encrpyting? Come on, Eu doesn't use PGP, one decryptor and any Eu
>program vulnerable.
>I think this is different to Java where you can't see the source at
>all. Almost like machine code. Even VB (hey, it's interpreted, too!)
That's a joke, right?
>> Exactly. That's why Euphoria is faster when writing and debugging code.
>slower run-time. Most (99%) of me wants faster run-time.
Games, eh?
>I wonder if Eu can be duo, both compiled and interpreted. (!!!!)
Sure, but there would be little to gain.
>>>BTW why did RDS choose interpreted thing?
>> Good question.
>So? No one?
>
>> Why do you need pointers? What hacks? Please give some examples.
>You know.... the standard stuff we really got used to in C++....
>Mainly for code optimizing anyway.
>
Well, where is the stuff I "really got used to" -
PERFORM 1000-PROCEDURE-START THRU 1000-PROCEDURE-END
The reason you need pointers in C is to make up for oversights in
the original language. These workarounds make coding difficult, and
add lots of potential errors.
>BTW does using "machine code" actually make Eu programs faster? Doing
>it means there still be interpreter which read the "machine code" then
>interpret then do it. One instruction could be numerous instructions
>with that!
I think you need a better understanding of computers. What you wrote
makes no sense.
>Why RDS decided not to implement OOP? Did they think it's just
>unnecessary or...... insufficient resources?
More likely insufficient interest. OOP just complicates many
programs.
>From time to time.... we're going to expect many lang enhancements.
>Like Pascal which had evolved (caused by Borland's hands) to the great
>ObjectPascal now used by Delphi, etc.
Borland has been working on TP since 1982. I think Euphoria is now
more functional than TP 5.0, which was released in 1988.
>Who would do and approve such changes in Eu? RDS?
Rob. And I think we have a better chance of getting Rob to change
Euphoria than we have to get Bill Gates to change VB!
>> What type mismatch? You can define your own types in Euphoria, to make
>> them as strict as you want.
>Hmm... I never used any custom types in Eu...
>
Try it sometime.
Irv
