1. Euphoria Features
Hello all,
my $0.04
As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
placed on Euphoria.
These should be the ideas we need to look at.
(just my personal opinion)
Euman
2. Re: Euphoria Features
Euman wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> my $0.04
>
> As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
> an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
> isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
>
> Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
> to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
> I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
> a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
> of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
> make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
> scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
> O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
> placed on Euphoria.
>
> These should be the ideas we need to look at.
>
> (just my personal opinion)
>
> Euman
>
>
The Euphoria interpreter source in Euphoria is better than open source, it is
public domain. That means that RDS has given up all rights to it.
Of course someone would have to re-implement it in a different language, but...
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
3. Re: Euphoria Features
Euman wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> my $0.04
>
> As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
> an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
> isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
>
> Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
> to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
> I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
> a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
> of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
> make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
> scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
> O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
> placed on Euphoria.
>
> These should be the ideas we need to look at.
>
> (just my personal opinion)
>
> Euman
>
>
The biggest weakness that I feel that Euphoria has in
Linux is the fact it uses CURSES and the GM Mouse.
When I was creating the eu_engin.e I got around the
CURSES but of course I had to use SVGA library but
the support for SVGA never kept up with the latest
kernels.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.exw
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
4. Re: Euphoria Features
Euman wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> my $0.04
>
> As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
> an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
> isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
>
> Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
> to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
> I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
> a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
> of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
> make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
> scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
> O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
> placed on Euphoria.
>
> These should be the ideas we need to look at.
>
> (just my personal opinion)
>
> Euman
>
Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's Euphoria
simplicity
and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the process
to please everyone it would bloat up.
5. Re: Euphoria Features
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Jul 14, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 15, 2005
Ken Orr wrote:
>
> Euman wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > my $0.04
> >
> > As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
> > an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
> > isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
> >
> > Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
> > to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
> > I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
> > a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
> > of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
> > make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
> > scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
> > O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
> > placed on Euphoria.
> >
> > These should be the ideas we need to look at.
> >
> > (just my personal opinion)
> >
> > Euman
> >
>
> Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's Euphoria
> simplicity
> and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the
> process
> to please everyone it would bloat up.
>
Exactly, it would likely become ugly like many open source languages, unless the
implementation commitee comprised of people with strong language direction.
As you know, IBasic is only for Windows as this time. Where PureBasic is now for
Windows, Linux, AmigaOS, MacOS X, and later OpenBSD.
Euphoria is suitable for my DOS programming.
Regards,
Vincent
6. Re: Euphoria Features
- Posted by Ken Orr <orr_kenneth at yahoo.ca>
Jul 14, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 15, 2005
Vincent wrote:
> As you know, IBasic is only for Windows as this time. Where PureBasic is now
> for Windows,
> Linux, AmigaOS, MacOS X, and later OpenBSD.
Mac OSX!? The website fails to mention that!
How long does it take to convert a source code from the Windows version to
the OSX version of PureBasic?
>
> Euphoria is suitable for my DOS programming.
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
7. Re: Euphoria Features
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Jul 14, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 15, 2005
Ken Orr wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > As you know, IBasic is only for Windows as this time. Where PureBasic is now
> > for Windows,
> > Linux, AmigaOS, MacOS X, and later OpenBSD.
>
> Mac OSX!? The website fails to mention that!
>
> How long does it take to convert a source code from the Windows version to
> the OSX version of PureBasic?
>
> >
> > Euphoria is suitable for my DOS programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vincent
> >
>
Look on the forum.. Its in beta 5 right now. Only registered users can download
the betas.
Regards,
Vincent
----------------------------------------------
___ __________ ___
/__/\ /__________\ |\ _\
\::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::|
\::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::|
\::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::|
\::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::|
\::,::/ |::| \:::::|
\___/ |__| \____|
.``.
',,'
8. Re: Euphoria Features
Ray Smith wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone ;)
>
> just thought I'd chime in with a little comment ... (not about Euphoria
> but about Open Source) ...
>
> Vincent wrote:
>
>>posted by: Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
>>Ken Orr wrote:
>>
>>>Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's
>>>Euphoria simplicity
>>>and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the
>>>process
>>>to please everyone it would bloat up.
>>
>>Exactly, it would likely become ugly like many open source languages,
>>unless the implementation commitee comprised of people with strong
>>language direction.
>
>
> Not getting into should Euphoria be open sourced or not ... but ...
>
> What proof is there that "if" Euphoria was Open Sourced it would "bloat
> up"??
> What other Open Source languages have "become ugly"???
>
> It's easy to say these things in an email but there is no proof to back
> up any of these claims. These statements are "opinions" only (and
> opinions with no proof or reasons for these opinions provided).
>
> There are many many open source projects that are very successful and
> technically brillant. What proof is there that an Open Source version
> of Euphoria would "bloat up" or "become ugly"???
>
> anyway ... hope life is treating everyone well ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> http://rays-web.com
Perl is the only example I can think of, but I think Perl was designed
to be ugly. I don't think that is a factor of its "open-sourceness".
Actually I know you can write "nice" code in Perl but it is the
exception rather than the rule. For tasks that I would use Perl for I
prefer Awk.
Python, Freebasic, gcc, and all the other hundreds of languages each
have something going for them.
But browsing the Computer Language Shootout
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ shows that ugly code can be written
in a lot of languages.
For the most part I think that Euphoria, despite its lack of some
features, is the most beautiful language that I have seen. I think C
has its own beauty as well.
--
==============================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
9. Re: Euphoria Features
Ken Orr wrote:
>
> Euman wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > my $0.04
> >
> > As a Linux user (Fedora Core X sponsored by RedHat) Euphoria is
> > an unacceptable tool for widespread use. The very fact that eu
> > isnt opensourced puts Euphoria on the very back burner.
> >
> > Everyone seems to want certain enhancments that RDS is reluctant
> > to persue so as to not break any previously written material.
> > I can see the reasons why they are reluctant however, I suggest
> > a version of euphoria that can be made opensourced so the 1000's
> > of Linux programmers can extend and vote on feature that would
> > make euphoria a better choice over perl or python for the many
> > scritps that are needed to run a safe, secure, powerful and stable
> > O/S. Surely there has to be benefits to RDS for the hard work already
> > placed on Euphoria.
> >
> > These should be the ideas we need to look at.
> >
> > (just my personal opinion)
> >
> > Euman
> >
>
> Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's Euphoria
> simplicity
> and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the
> process
> to please everyone it would bloat up.
>
And you have no idea how an open source project is managed. There is a core of a
few people, who does some work and accepts "patches" from other people and
decides whether these patches should be incorporated or not.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
10. Re: Euphoria Features
- Posted by Ken Orr <orr_kenneth at yahoo.ca>
Jul 16, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 17, 2005
Alexander Toresson wrote:
>
> Ken Orr wrote:
> > Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's Euphoria
> > simplicity
> > and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the
> > process
> > to please everyone it would bloat up.
> >
>
> And you have no idea how an open source project is managed. There is a core of
> a few
> people, who does some work and accepts "patches" from other people and decides
> whether
> these patches should be incorporated or not.
True, I might not know the specifs of how an open source project is managed, but
I have
had sat in boards and have worked under them also. Boards, committes, or
whatever you want
to call them are run by consensus and that involves giving in a little here and
a little
there to get everyone happy. In the end you get a decision that everyone can
live with but
no one really likes it. It all boils down to politics.
Of course all that changes if you have a strong leader in charge...
>
> Regards, Alexander Toresson
>
11. Re: Euphoria Features
Ken Orr wrote:
>
> Alexander Toresson wrote:
> >
> > Ken Orr wrote:
> > > Putting Euphoria on the hand of 1000's developers would destroy's Euphoria
> > > simplicity
> > > and elegance. It would be pulled on 1000's directions at once. It the
> > > process
> > > to please everyone it would bloat up.
> > >
> >
> > And you have no idea how an open source project is managed. There is a core
> > of a few
> > people, who does some work and accepts "patches" from other people and
> > decides whether
> > these patches should be incorporated or not.
>
> True, I might not know the specifs of how an open source project is managed,
> but I
> have
> had sat in boards and have worked under them also. Boards, committes, or
> whatever you
> want
> to call them are run by consensus and that involves giving in a little here
> and a little
>
> there to get everyone happy. In the end you get a decision that everyone can
> live
> with but
> no one really likes it. It all boils down to politics.
>
> Of course all that changes if you have a strong leader in charge...
>
Sorry if I sounded a little harsh. I'm just tired of hearing "open source ain't
good, there are 1000's of people doing whatever they want to the code and
everything ends up like a mess" from Xaero/Vincent. When I was learning how to
use a CVS a week ago or so he asked me if I was gonna work for a big corporation.
Anyway, the core programmers on an open source project tend to have similar
thoughts on where the project is going to head for. That is because only people
who are interested in a project actually join it. Also, if someone is not content
with how the project is run, and the others do not agree, there's a few options:
1. Quit the project and join another project, which aims for something similar.
2. Quit the project and fork it.
3. Quit the project and start a new similar project.
In a commercial project you could not do 2., and maybe not 3. (because of patent
issues). Other than that, there's a few differences. By quitting an open source
project, you do not lose your wages. Quitting the project does not affect you
"physically", and joining the project doesn't do that either. Thus project
members tend to have similar thoughts on how the project is gonna develop.
Also, there usually is a leader, who discusses things with the other project
members. If there is a conflict, he's the one that decides what to do.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
