1. Rob Q: MacOS X Euphoria
Rob have you ever considered porting Euphoria over to PowerPC architecure?
Apple will be switching to Intel CPUs supporting x86 in their Power Mac
computers next year. That may make it easier to port?
Can Euphoria interface with Objective C, like it can with C++? Can Euphoria
handle C++ templetes?
If Euphoria can interface with Objective C with a library, then it may be
possible to somehow use Apple's Cocoa application interface, and make native OS X
GUI apps.
Also, you might add on that suggestion list I sent you by email a while ago.
That you should use the latest version of OpenWatcom and GCC for all your 32 bit
products, when it's time to build v3.0. I would say by then the latest would be
OpenWatcom v1.4 or v1.5, and GCC v4.1.
If I'm correct, your still using that old Watcom 10.6. Virtually 100's of bugs
have been fixed since then, along with many improvements and compiler
optimizations. It wont cost a dime to use, since it's open source. I'm not sure
why there is GCC v4 and GCC v3.4 avaialable, but you should use the latest. As
for using the latest OpenWatcom you might get a slight performance increase, with
the same compiler flags. Plus might get a slightly smaller EXE and static
libraries files. But most of all, you get the piece of mind of using a updated
compiler with LOTS of bugs fixes.
You would need to change:
int **jumptab = ((int **)Execute)+??
BTW: That loop optimization bug was fixed in OpenWatcom v1.1. But I have done
some testing, and it increases program size, and reduces performance slightly, So
by all means dont use it.
Don't forget about 64 bit products either. That may not be possible for 3.0, but
soon after please. I'm going to get a nice dual core AMD machine next.
Regards,
Vincent
2. Re: Rob Q: MacOS X Euphoria
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Jul 17, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 18, 2005
Vincent wrote:
> Rob have you ever considered porting Euphoria over to PowerPC architecure?
> Apple will be switching to Intel CPUs supporting x86 in their Power Mac
> computers next
> year. That may make it easier to port?
x86 helps, but it's not as important as you might think.
When porting Euphoria, there are only a few isolated places where
the details of the CPU make any difference. There's hardly
any ASM in Euphoria. Other languages (that shall remain nameless)
that produce ASM, will need major work to move to a new CPU.
> Can Euphoria interface with Objective C, like it can with C++? Can Euphoria
> handle
> C++ templetes?
I don't know.
> Also, you might add on that suggestion list I sent you by email a while ago.
> That you
> should use the latest version of OpenWatcom and GCC for all your 32 bit
> products, when
> it's time to build v3.0. I would say by then the latest would be OpenWatcom
> v1.4 or
> v1.5, and GCC v4.1.
I intend to use OpenWatcom next time, but I'm not really affected by
any 10.6 bugs.
There was a slight backwards compatibility problem
when using the latest GCC on a recent version of Linux. I ended up
building the interpreter on one machine, and the Translator libraries
of another, to get maximum compatibility across versions of Linux.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: Rob Q: MacOS X Euphoria
Vincent wrote:
>
> Also, you might add on that suggestion list I sent you by email a while ago.
> That you
> should use the latest version of OpenWatcom and GCC for all your 32 bit
> products, when
> it's time to build v3.0. I would say by then the latest would be OpenWatcom
> v1.4 or
> v1.5, and GCC v4.1.
You most likely do NOT want to use the new version of OpenWatcom (1.3). It
introduced a bunch of bugs and a very large amount of code now no longer works
with the new version.
> Don't forget about 64 bit products either. That may not be possible for 3.0,
> but soon
> after please. I'm going to get a nice dual core AMD machine next.
There is no real reason for Euphoria to be 64-bit at this time. There are a
million other things you could/should do before you add 64-bit support since I
bet only a small number of people have 64-bit processors yet alone have a 64-bit
OS.
4. Re: Rob Q: MacOS X Euphoria
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > Also, you might add on that suggestion list I sent you by email a while ago.
> > That you
> > should use the latest version of OpenWatcom and GCC for all your 32 bit
> > products, when
> > it's time to build v3.0. I would say by then the latest would be OpenWatcom
> > v1.4 or
> > v1.5, and GCC v4.1.
> You most likely do NOT want to use the new version of OpenWatcom (1.3). It
> introduced
> a bunch of bugs and a very large amount of code now no longer works with the
> new version.
>
I wasnt aware of that, but if you are, I bet the developers are too and most if
not all of em should be fixed by v1.4, which should be coming out real soon...
v1.3 has been out for 10 months now (lots of time for bug fixes). I use Open
Watcom v1.3 for all translated/compiled programs. They all work 100%, thus I have
yet to see ANY compatability problems.
>
> > Don't forget about 64 bit products either. That may not be possible for 3.0,
> > but soon
> > after please. I'm going to get a nice dual core AMD machine next.
> There is no real reason for Euphoria to be 64-bit at this time. There are a
> million
> other things you could/should do before you add 64-bit support since I bet
> only a small
> number of people have 64-bit processors yet alone have a 64-bit OS.
>
Fair enough, but 2006 is going to be the year in which dual-core, 64 bit CPUs
will take over the computer market domain. 64 bit Euphoria could wait a bit
longer, but eventually an additional 64-bit version of the products will be
nessecary, along with thread-safety.
Regards,
Vincent
5. Re: Rob Q: MacOS X Euphoria
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > Rob have you ever considered porting Euphoria over to PowerPC architecure?
> > Apple will be switching to Intel CPUs supporting x86 in their Power Mac
> > computers next
> > year. That may make it easier to port?
>
> x86 helps, but it's not as important as you might think.
> When porting Euphoria, there are only a few isolated places where
> the details of the CPU make any difference. There's hardly
> any ASM in Euphoria. Other languages (that shall remain nameless)
> that produce ASM, will need major work to move to a new CPU.
>
> > Can Euphoria interface with Objective C, like it can with C++? Can Euphoria
> > handle
> > C++ templetes?
>
> I don't know.
Although I am not an expert, I know that Objective C uses a runtime system for
its object orientation. Otherwise it is normal C.
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
