1. A modal farewell
Hello All,
After much consideration of what Euphoria is, what features have been requested
time and time, and time again, and watching generations of Euphoria Programmers
come and go, it has now come to my time to leave the Euphoria Community. As much
as I have enjoyed programming in Euphoria, it is my general disappointment that
features that are commonly requested, get tossed aside, without consideration to
what the programmer has to go through. The language I've moved on to, is Ruby.
It may not be as fast as Euphoria, but at this time, I'm willing to sacrifice
speed, for actual programming Features.
For thoes of you who are intrested, Ruby is a Object Oriented Language, that has
a simple syntax, and easy to understand view. It's almost to easy to catch on
with, if you understand Object Oriented languages. The reason why I choose Ruby,
was partly for the fact that Ruby is an OOL, but it also has features that we've
desprately requested from Rob in Euphoria, such as True Exception Handling, an
excellent include/namespace system, Standard Libraries, that put Euphoria to
shame, Full Thread Support, Cross Platform for Windows, Linux, and MacOS, and
while it lacks any centralized Binding Feature, there are people who have
ingenuitive designs for creating single executables, in one method or another. I
can find myself actually understanding the code that I'm writting, and I'm not
even begining to learn the language, or the features.
I will still be around to help out the Euphoria community however I can, and I
still have Euphoria 2.5, but I seriously doubt I will purchase another Euphoria
product, unless there's some drastic changes, that includes features that both I
myself, and many others have requested. And like they say, if history repeats
itself (As it has many times with Euphoria), I'm not seeing that happening
anytime soon. So, till the next time, Have fun programming, and don't let the
language dictate to you, what you need, let you dictate to the language, what you
need.
Mario Steele
http://enchantedblade.trilake.net
Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
2. Re: A modal farewell
Catch in the chat room someday. And thanks for all your great work.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
3. Re: A modal farewell
On 24 Jul 2005, at 23:23, Mario Steele wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Mario Steele <eumario at trilake.net>
>
> Hello All,
>
> After much consideration of what Euphoria is, what features have been
> requested
> time and time, and time again, and watching generations of Euphoria
> Programmers
> come and go, it has now come to my time to leave the Euphoria Community. As
> much as I have enjoyed programming in Euphoria, it is my general
> disappointment
> that features that are commonly requested, get tossed aside, without
> consideration to what the programmer has to go through. The language I've
> moved
> on to, is Ruby. It may not be as fast as Euphoria, but at this time, I'm
> willing to sacrifice speed, for actual programming Features.
Maybe i should revisit Ruby. But i'll wait for whatever Derek is calling his
language first.
> For thoes of you who are intrested, Ruby is a Object Oriented Language, that
> has
> a simple syntax, and easy to understand view. It's almost to easy to catch on
> with, if you understand Object Oriented languages. The reason why I choose
> Ruby, was partly for the fact that Ruby is an OOL, but it also has features
> that
> we've desprately requested from Rob in Euphoria, such as True Exception
> Handling, an excellent include/namespace system, Standard Libraries, that put
> Euphoria to shame, Full Thread Support, Cross Platform for Windows, Linux, and
> MacOS, and while it lacks any centralized Binding Feature, there are people
> who
> have ingenuitive designs for creating single executables, in one method or
> another. I can find myself actually understanding the code that I'm writting,
> and I'm not even begining to learn the language, or the features.
I am using OOEU.
> I will still be around to help out the Euphoria community however I can, and I
> still have Euphoria 2.5, but I seriously doubt I will purchase another
> Euphoria
> product, unless there's some drastic changes, that includes features that both
> I
> myself, and many others have requested. And like they say, if history repeats
> itself (As it has many times with Euphoria), I'm not seeing that happening
> anytime soon. So, till the next time, Have fun programming, and don't let the
> language dictate to you, what you need, let you dictate to the language, what
> you need.
Sorry to see you go, Mario. It's been frustrating as hell with RDS. Best of
luck to you.
Kat
4. Re: A modal farewell
Mario Steele wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> After much consideration of what Euphoria is, what features have been
> requested time
> and time, and time again, and watching generations of Euphoria Programmers
> come and
> go, it has now come to my time to leave the Euphoria Community. As much as I
> have
> enjoyed programming in Euphoria, it is my general disappointment that features
> that
> are commonly requested, get tossed aside, without consideration to what the
> programmer
> has to go through. The language I've moved on to, is Ruby. It may not be as
> fast
> as Euphoria, but at this time, I'm willing to sacrifice speed, for actual
> programming
> Features.
>
> For thoes of you who are intrested, Ruby is a Object Oriented Language, that
> has a
> simple syntax, and easy to understand view. It's almost to easy to catch on
> with,
> if you understand Object Oriented languages. The reason why I choose Ruby,
> was partly
> for the fact that Ruby is an OOL, but it also has features that we've
> desprately requested
> from Rob in Euphoria, such as True Exception Handling, an excellent
> include/namespace
> system, Standard Libraries, that put Euphoria to shame, Full Thread Support,
> Cross
> Platform for Windows, Linux, and MacOS, and while it lacks any centralized
> Binding
> Feature, there are people who have ingenuitive designs for creating single
> executables,
> in one method or another. I can find myself actually understanding the code
> that I'm
> writting, and I'm not even begining to learn the language, or the features.
>
> I will still be around to help out the Euphoria community however I can, and I
> still
> have Euphoria 2.5, but I seriously doubt I will purchase another Euphoria
> product,
> unless there's some drastic changes, that includes features that both I
> myself, and
> many others have requested. And like they say, if history repeats itself (As
> it has
> many times with Euphoria), I'm not seeing that happening anytime soon. So,
> till the
> next time, Have fun programming, and don't let the language dictate to you,
> what you
> need, let you dictate to the language, what you need.
>
> Mario Steele
> <a
> href="http://enchantedblade.trilake.net">http://enchantedblade.trilake.net</a>
> Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
>
Sorry to see you go, I'm sticking around for various reasons.
Not that you care or anything, but I find 2 problems with Ruby: 1) it is too
slow, 2) its syntax is bad IMHO.
Here are some benchmark results
-------------------------------
heapsort (100000)
----------------
Euphoria is ~7.6115x faster than Ruby.
**************************************
fibonacci (32)
--------------
Euphoria is ~14.1044x faster than Ruby.
***************************************
ackermann (3, 10)
-----------------
Euphoria is ~28.4510x faster than Ruby.
***************************************
sieve (900)
-----------
Euphoria is ~58.7021x faster than Ruby.
***************************************
As for a code example:
======================
#!/home/d/docx/bin/ruby -w
#
=begin
Description: Get an array of files that match a pattern from a directory
=end
files = Dir["*"]
files.delete_if {|x| x !~ /\d+[a-z]?\.rb/}
files.sort.each {|x| print x, " -- " }
puts
==============================================
If you ask me, PureB is a much better contender. 
Jason Gade: Have you finished those benchmarks?
************************************************
sources: http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/bench.txt
http://www.io.com/~docx/ruby/005.rb
Regards,
Vincent
----------------------------------------------
___ __________ ___
/__/\ /__________\ |\ _\
\::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::|
\::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::|
\::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::|
\::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::|
\::,::/ |::| \:::::|
\___/ |__| \____|
.``.
',,'
5. Re: A modal farewell
Vincent wrote:
>
> Mario Steele wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > After much consideration of what Euphoria is, what features have been
> > requested time
> > and time, and time again, and watching generations of Euphoria Programmers
> > come and
> > go, it has now come to my time to leave the Euphoria Community. As much as
> > I have
> > enjoyed programming in Euphoria, it is my general disappointment that
> > features that
> > are commonly requested, get tossed aside, without consideration to what the
> > programmer
> > has to go through. The language I've moved on to, is Ruby. It may not be
> > as fast
> > as Euphoria, but at this time, I'm willing to sacrifice speed, for actual
> > programming
> > Features.
> >
> > For thoes of you who are intrested, Ruby is a Object Oriented Language, that
> > has a
> > simple syntax, and easy to understand view. It's almost to easy to catch on
> > with,
> > if you understand Object Oriented languages. The reason why I choose Ruby,
> > was partly
> > for the fact that Ruby is an OOL, but it also has features that we've
> > desprately requested
> > from Rob in Euphoria, such as True Exception Handling, an excellent
> > include/namespace
> > system, Standard Libraries, that put Euphoria to shame, Full Thread Support,
> > Cross
> > Platform for Windows, Linux, and MacOS, and while it lacks any centralized
> > Binding
> > Feature, there are people who have ingenuitive designs for creating single
> > executables,
> > in one method or another. I can find myself actually understanding the code
> > that I'm
> > writting, and I'm not even begining to learn the language, or the features.
> >
> > I will still be around to help out the Euphoria community however I can, and
> > I still
> > have Euphoria 2.5, but I seriously doubt I will purchase another Euphoria
> > product,
> > unless there's some drastic changes, that includes features that both I
> > myself, and
> > many others have requested. And like they say, if history repeats itself
> > (As it has
> > many times with Euphoria), I'm not seeing that happening anytime soon. So,
> > till the
> > next time, Have fun programming, and don't let the language dictate to you,
> > what you
> > need, let you dictate to the language, what you need.
> >
> > Mario Steele
> > <a
> > href="http://enchantedblade.trilake.net">http://enchantedblade.trilake.net</a>
> > Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
> >
>
> Sorry to see you go, I'm sticking around for various reasons.
> Not that you care or anything, but I find 2 problems with Ruby: 1) it is too
> slow,
> 2) its syntax is bad IMHO.
>
> Here are some benchmark results
> -------------------------------
>
> heapsort (100000)
> ----------------
> Euphoria is ~7.6115x faster than Ruby.
> **************************************
>
> fibonacci (32)
> --------------
> Euphoria is ~14.1044x faster than Ruby.
> ***************************************
>
> ackermann (3, 10)
> -----------------
> Euphoria is ~28.4510x faster than Ruby.
> ***************************************
>
> sieve (900)
> -----------
> Euphoria is ~58.7021x faster than Ruby.
> ***************************************
>
> As for a code example:
> ======================
>
> #!/home/d/docx/bin/ruby -w
> #
> =begin
> Description: Get an array of files that match a pattern from a directory
> =end
>
> files = Dir["*"]
> files.delete_if {|x| x !~ /\d+[a-z]?\.rb/}
> files.sort.each {|x| print x, " -- " }
> puts
> ==============================================
>
> If you ask me, PureB is a much better contender.
>
> Jason Gade: Have you finished those benchmarks?
> ************************************************
No, I'm going very slow on it.
I think I have Fannkuch figured out, though.
>
> sources: <a
> href="http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html">http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html</a>
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/bench.txt">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/bench.txt</a>
> <a
> href="http://www.io.com/~docx/ruby/005.rb">http://www.io.com/~docx/ruby/005.rb</a>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> ___ __________ ___
> /__/\ /__________\ |\ _\
> \::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::|
> \::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::|
> \::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::|
> \::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::|
> \::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::|
> \::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::|
> \::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::|
> \::,::/ |::| \:::::|
> \___/ |__| \____|
>
> .``.
> ',,'
>
>
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
6. Re: A modal farewell
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Jul 26, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 27, 2005
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > Jason Gade: Have you finished those benchmarks?
> > ************************************************
>
> No, I'm going very slow on it.
>
> I think I have Fannkuch figured out, though.
Well when you finish them you should submit them to the archive. I would like to
test the next release of Euphoria with v2.5 and v2.4 too. I want to see if
cooperative multi-tasking will affect the execution and parsing performance of
non-tasked programs/libraries to ANY extent. My hope is that they will not, but
instead become faster due to any further frontend and backend optimizations, as
well as the translator.
Someone should compare all your benchmark results to the other languages in the
shootout. Lets see if Euphoria can beat the other "interpreted" languages in most
or all of the benchmarks, perhaps even beat some "compiled" languages.
Regards,
Vincent
7. Re: A modal farewell
Vincent wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
>
>> Vincent wrote:
>
>
>>> Jason Gade: Have you finished those benchmarks?
>>> ************************************************
>>
>> No, I'm going very slow on it.
>>
>> I think I have Fannkuch figured out, though.
>
>
> Well when you finish them you should submit them to the archive. I
> would like to test the next release of Euphoria with v2.5 and v2.4
> too. I want to see if cooperative multi-tasking will affect the
> execution and parsing performance of non-tasked programs/libraries to
> ANY extent. My hope is that they will not, but instead become faster
> due to any further frontend and backend optimizations, as well as the
> translator.
Actually, I'm going to start submitting them to the archive as a
work-in-progress. Maybe within the next week or so and maybe people can
improve them or add to them as I do them.
I don't think I'll perform any real metrics on them until I get at least
50% or so done, though, and when I get FreeBSD or Linux running right on
my computer.
I was thinking of writing my test script in Euphoria if possible since I
don't know Perl. I guess I could use a Bash script. Unless the shootout
has the test scripts available, I didn't see them by glancing.
> Someone should compare all your benchmark results to the other
> languages in the shootout. Lets see if Euphoria can beat the other
> "interpreted" languages in most or all of the benchmarks, perhaps
> even beat some "compiled" languages.
If I stick with it and get FreeBSD or Linux running right I'll see if I
can run the more common languages.
> Regards, Vincent
--
==============================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
