1. RE: Euphoria.NET
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
>
>
>
> Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> to support
> Longhorn.
> EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
>
> We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib is
using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
available in new DLL files and new API routines.
Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
--
Derek
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> Subject: Euphoria.NET
>
>
> > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
> Longhorn's new
> > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
> programs, so
> > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
> a program
> > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very
> similar to the
> > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features
> intended for use
> > by managed languages, such as C#?
> >
> > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps
> there could be
> > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If
> this extra
> > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll
> leave this
> > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> >
> > Just Concerned,
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/04
> >
>
> ---
>
>
> --
>
>
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
2. RE: Euphoria.NET
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:56 AM
> > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
> >
> >
> > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> > to support
> > Longhorn.
> > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> >
> > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
>
> This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib
> is
> using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
> available in new DLL files and new API routines.
>
> Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
> since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
Well what are you waiting for! Add them! 
>
> --
> Derek
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> > To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> > Subject: Euphoria.NET
> >
> >
> > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
> > Longhorn's new
> > > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
> > programs, so
> > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
> > a program
> > > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very
> > similar to the
> > > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features
> > intended for use
> > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > >
> > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps
> > there could be
> > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If
> > this extra
> > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll
> > leave this
> > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> > >
> > > Just Concerned,
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/04
> > >
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
3. RE: Euphoria.NET
Hayden McKay wrote:
> Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade to support
> Longhorn.
> EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
>
> We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
... 2 cents of comments from someone who doesn't know anything about
Longhorn!
Can I assume Longhorn will be able to run win32 based exe's?
If so Euphoria will work.
I have a suspicion that Longhorn may treat current win32 based exe's
the same way Windows 9x/2000/XP treat DOS apps though.
I assume MS will try and phase out the current crop of applications
and try and force developers into the .NET platform.
I don't beleive a current Euphoria application calling a few Longhorn
DLL's will provide the resources needed to be fully ".NET" or
"Longhorn" compatiable. (I assume this means something like an
application being able to be run as "managed" code?)
Some features may be able to be accessed this way but I doubt for
instance you would be able to access all features of the .NET platform.
This might not be a major problem by the way as I beleive MS have a
pretty large fight on their hands with regard to .NET anyway.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> Subject: Euphoria.NET
> > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows Longhorn's new
> > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32 programs, so
> > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features, a program
> > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very similar to the
> > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features intended for use
> > by managed languages, such as C#?
> >
> > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps there could be
> > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If this extra
> > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll leave this
> > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
4. RE: Euphoria.NET
Ray Smith wrote:
>
>
> Hayden McKay wrote:
> > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade to support
> > Longhorn.
> > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> >
> > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
>
> ... 2 cents of comments from someone who doesn't know anything about
> Longhorn!
>
> Can I assume Longhorn will be able to run win32 based exe's?
> If so Euphoria will work.
>
> I have a suspicion that Longhorn may treat current win32 based exe's
> the same way Windows 9x/2000/XP treat DOS apps though.
> I assume MS will try and phase out the current crop of applications
> and try and force developers into the .NET platform.
> I don't beleive a current Euphoria application calling a few Longhorn
> DLL's will provide the resources needed to be fully ".NET" or
> "Longhorn" compatiable. (I assume this means something like an
> application being able to be run as "managed" code?)
> Some features may be able to be accessed this way but I doubt for
> instance you would be able to access all features of the .NET platform.
Soimeone might make a .DLL to access them if they don't work directly,
or Eu could support them.
It will run fine as is though.
>
> This might not be a major problem by the way as I beleive MS have a
> pretty large fight on their hands with regard to .NET anyway.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> http://rays-web.com
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> > To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> > Subject: Euphoria.NET
> > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows Longhorn's new
> > > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32 programs, so
> > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features, a program
> > > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very similar to the
> > > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features intended for use
> > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > >
> > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps there could be
> > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If this extra
> > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll leave this
> > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
>
5. RE: Euphoria.NET
CoJaBo wrote:
> Soimeone might make a .DLL to access them if they don't work directly,
> or Eu could support them.
> It will run fine as is though.
A rather brave prediction ;)
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
6. RE: Euphoria.NET
I asked a similar question in another place, and I got this response.
"Microsoft says that Win32 will remain avaliable and largely unchanged
except for minimal support for WinFS but Avalon(2D/3D Graphics,
Movies/Audio Layer) will only be avaliable in Managed Code(.Net).
Indigo(P2P, Web Services, Generally Networking/Internet stuff) is also
primarily avaliable for .Net but I think it's also compatible with COM.
All the really good(And new) features in Longhorn are made IN .Net for
.Net, third party development software may be compatible if the makers
write a version of their language using .Net."
What do you think? I would want to use Avalon, but it looks like I
can't with euphoria unless eu is changed.
Phil
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:56 AM
> > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
> >
> >
> > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> > to support
> > Longhorn.
> > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> >
> > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
>
> This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib
> is
> using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
> available in new DLL files and new API routines.
>
> Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
> since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
>
> --
> Derek
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> > To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> > Subject: Euphoria.NET
> >
> >
> > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
Longhorn's new
> > > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
programs, so
> > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
a program
> > > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very
similar to the
> > > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features
intended for use
> > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > >
> > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps
there could be
> > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If
this extra
> > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll
leave this
> > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> > >
> > > Just Concerned,
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/04
> > >
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
7. RE: Euphoria.NET
Well in that case the euphoria community should just boycot windows, until
they meet our demands of utter compatability without any work on our part,
besides who even uses windows now days anyways?
Daniel
>From: Philip Deets <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Euphoria.NET
>
>
>I asked a similar question in another place, and I got this response.
>
>"Microsoft says that Win32 will remain avaliable and largely unchanged
>except for minimal support for WinFS but Avalon(2D/3D Graphics,
>Movies/Audio Layer) will only be avaliable in Managed Code(.Net).
>Indigo(P2P, Web Services, Generally Networking/Internet stuff) is also
>primarily avaliable for .Net but I think it's also compatible with COM.
>
>All the really good(And new) features in Longhorn are made IN .Net for
>.Net, third party development software may be compatible if the makers
>write a version of their language using .Net."
>
>What do you think? I would want to use Avalon, but it looks like I
>can't with euphoria unless eu is changed.
>
>Phil
>
>Derek Parnell wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:56 AM
> > > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > > Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
> > >
> > >
> > > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> > > to support
> > > Longhorn.
> > > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> > >
> > > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
> >
> > This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib
> > is
> > using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
> > available in new DLL files and new API routines.
> >
> > Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
> > since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
> >
> > --
> > Derek
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Philip Deets" <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> > > To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:04 AM
> > > Subject: Euphoria.NET
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
>Longhorn's new
> > > > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
>programs, so
> > > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
>a program
> > > > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very
>similar to the
> > > > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features
>intended for use
> > > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps
>there could be
> > > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If
>this extra
> > > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll
>leave this
> > > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> > > >
> > > > Just Concerned,
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/04
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
<snip>
>
>
8. RE: Euphoria.NET
I use Windows XP, and as soon as Longhorn comes out, I'm getting it. If
eu will not support Longhorn, then I guess I'll have to go with C#.
I don't know anyone in real life that uses anything other than Windows,
and most use XP. Maybe it's just my area, I don't know. But shouldn't
the developer target the platform the majority of the end-users have?
Phil
Daniel Kluss wrote:
>
>
> Well in that case the euphoria community should just boycot windows,
> until
> they meet our demands of utter compatability without any work on our
> part,
> besides who even uses windows now days anyways?
> Daniel
>
>
> >From: Philip Deets <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> >To: EUforum at topica.com
> >Subject: RE: Euphoria.NET
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:12 +0000
> >
> >
> >I asked a similar question in another place, and I got this response.
> >
> >"Microsoft says that Win32 will remain avaliable and largely unchanged
> >except for minimal support for WinFS but Avalon(2D/3D Graphics,
> >Movies/Audio Layer) will only be avaliable in Managed Code(.Net).
> >Indigo(P2P, Web Services, Generally Networking/Internet stuff) is also
> >primarily avaliable for .Net but I think it's also compatible with COM.
> >
> >All the really good(And new) features in Longhorn are made IN .Net for
> >.Net, third party development software may be compatible if the makers
> >write a version of their language using .Net."
> >
> >What do you think? I would want to use Avalon, but it looks like I
> >can't with euphoria unless eu is changed.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >Derek Parnell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:56 AM
> > > > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> > > > to support
> > > > Longhorn.
> > > > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> > > >
> > > > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
> > >
> > > This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib
> > > is
> > > using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
> > > available in new DLL files and new API routines.
> > >
> > > Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
> > > since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Derek
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Philip Deets"
> > > >
> > > > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
> >Longhorn's new
> > > > > features. Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
> >programs, so
> > > > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
> >a program
> > > > > must use the Longhorn API. The Longhorn API will be very
> >similar to the
> > > > > current .NET . Will euphoria be able to use features
> >intended for use
> > > > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary. Perhaps
> >there could be
> > > > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu. If
> >this extra
> > > > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great. I'll
> >leave this
> > > > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just Concerned,
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
9. RE: Euphoria.NET
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Deets [mailto:philip1987 at hotmail.com]
> Subject: RE: Euphoria.NET
>
>
>
> I use Windows XP, and as soon as Longhorn comes out, I'm
> getting it. If
> eu will not support Longhorn, then I guess I'll have to go with C#.
Good luck.
> I don't know anyone in real life that uses anything other
> than Windows,
> and most use XP.
You and I have a different idea of what 'real life' is. There are a LOT of
companies that are using Unix, Apple, Sun, Tandem and IBM (as well as
Windows). And there are very few people or companies using Euphoria as their
production development language.
And I think that various surveys are still saying that most Windows
platforms are still Windows 98 in the home and Windows 2000 in businesses.
XP is not being taken up in corporate world because of the huge expense in
hardware upgrades and retraining. It is happening, but quite slowly.
--
Derek
10. RE: Euphoria.NET
Philip Deets wrote:
> I use Windows XP, and as soon as Longhorn comes out, I'm getting it.
Is there a reason why?
What features are you after that XP doesn't have?
[snip]
> I don't know anyone in real life that uses anything other than Windows,
> and most use XP. Maybe it's just my area, I don't know.
I agree that most desktops and workstations are running some form of
Windows. Companies I have seen "tend" to be using Win 2000/XP.
Saying that I still know of a few using NT 4.0 and 98.
Personal users still have Win 95 right through to Win XP.
(I have no idea of the percentage of users on each platform but
Microsoft has extended support for Win98 since so many people are
still using it and not likely to upgrade in the near future ...
including some rather massive organisations!)
The point I wanted to make was ... there is alot more to
computing then desktop PC's and as Derek said Sun, HP, IBM and Linux
all have a share of the server market. Even now you won't find many
Windows servers at the top end of town.
Linux and MAC OSX are pushing into the desktop market but are still
probably a couple of years away from having a significant market share
... "my" guess is they will achieve a significant market share
in the next few years - 5% is significant!).
Another point is ... If all your friends are taking drugs would
you? Just because alot of people are doing something doesn't make it
the best option or the right option.
> But shouldn't
> the developer target the platform the majority of the end-users have?
>From a marketing point you are obviously correct.
My personal preference is to use cross platform tools. It is
sometimes a little more difficult to get started but once you have
you aren't limited to one OS.
On a number of occasions we have migrated clients to new platforms
which would have meant loosing buisness if we didn't support
multiple platforms.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
11. RE: Euphoria.NET
Travis Beaty wrote:
>
If you are writing code for servers, etc., then the population is
> (according to media and journal reports) shifting quickly into the *Nix
> environment.
Always good to read a post from a Linux user ;)
The only thing I'd like to comment on is that "I" don't "think"
Microsoft has ever had a big share of the server market.
Their share was increasing for quiet awhile, but none of the big (or
should a say huge) users or applications ever went to Windows.
The small to medium market did swamp to Windows servers and it's now
this market that seem to be shifting to the Linux platform.
Always good to hear from a Linux user ;)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
12. RE: Euphoria.NET
Ray Smith wrote:
<snip>
> Another point is ... If all your friends are taking drugs would
> you?
Hey, depending on what they're providing, I might indulge... 
But seriously...
> Just because alot of people are doing something doesn't make it
> the best option or the right option.
No, but it usually helps in determining which platform to focus on
first. Cross-platform is great but there aren't many options currently
available when it comes to Eu; although, I'm sure that could change over
time.
Some form of conditional inclusion would help with that...
-- Brian
