1. Re: the fate of a euphorian; and, Changing Mailing List Heading?
- Posted by Dan B Moyer <DANMOYER at PRODIGY.NET>
Oct 10, 2000
-
Last edited Oct 11, 2000
Jiri,
re: OFFICIAL SUBJECT OF THIS FORUM:
Apparently Robert doesn't agree with you; from a post last November:
--------------------------
Friday, November 26, 1999 8:49 PM
David Guy writes:
> The title of the Euphoria mailing list reads:
> "Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS"
> I have no idea how hard or easy it would be to change this,
> but since Euphoria now runs on three platforms, might not
> looking into changing the title of the mailing be a good idea?
I tried to get it changed when Euphoria went to 2 platforms,
but apparently it's not that easy.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
-----------------------------------------------
re: LOTS'A WINDOWS POSTS:
Ok, maybe you're right, but when Judith expressed this same concern herself
& we then started to discuss her improvements to the Win32Lib IDE privately,
two things occurred: we both got private mail asking us to bring our
discussion *back* to the forum, so as to allow others the opportunity to see
the direction the IDE was taking and have input too (and pointing out a
simple truth: any message anyone is not interested in, is pretty easy to
skip), and, others began to write about the IDE too.
WHAT DO OTHERS THINK ABOUT TOO MANY WINDOWS POSTS?
So, now that you have presumably stirred up some excitement, I wait to see
what others have to say on the subject of too many Windows posts. I do
observe, however, that I know that I have the opportunity to learn from
something which *is* posted, but I have no such opportunity to learn from
something which *isn't*.
Dan :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Babor" <J.Babor at GNS.CRI.NZ>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: the fate of a euphorian
> Mic wrote:
>
> >It just struck me that I haven't heard/seen anything from the
> >following ppl in a (very) long time:
> >
> >Ralf N, Jacques D, Lucius H, Mark Honnor, Michael Bolin & some
> >others..
> >
> >So my question is, what happened to these guys? Did all die in a
> >plane-crash or what? Or did they just decide to give up on euphoria
> >all the sudden?
>
> I do not think they all died. But I am sure some of them left to avoid
> death from boredom.
>
> In an attempt to generate a bit of excitement, I'll tell you why I
> think this forum is getting less attractive every day. In summary,
> it's probably just these three things: Mike-the Spike, incessant
> window$ talk and general apparent lack of progress on Robert's part.
>
> In detail, I am not going to spend any time on misogynist Mike and his
> lavatory culture. His crude fantasies as well as his transparent lies
> can be simply filtered out.
>
> It's a bit more difficult with the Bill's mob. Last night, in quiet
> desperation, I went over the last hundred messages. Seventy-nine (79)
> of them related to some obscure aspect of Window$, significant, I
> suspect, only to Judith and Dan. Now, I am sure Judith is a very nice
> lady and Dan is most likely a perfect gentleman. But their obsession
> with countless quirks of a second rate operating system does not
> coincide with one of my hobbies, nor it is the official subject of
> this forum - Euphoria. Dan and Judith are not the only transgressors
> in this area, but I am not going to name anybody else - two or three
> new enemies a day is my current limit.
>
> The third one, Robert, is also tough, because, just like someone else
> said recently, I, too, would prefer to stay on his good side. But his
> progress with Euphoria has been painfully slow over the last couple of
> years. Ok, we had the Linux version (still a forbidden garden for me,
> but I suspect not much more than a re-compilation with a little bit of
> tweaking plus some testing), EDS (was it just me who yawned so
> brazenly?), and lastly the translator/compiler - lots of expectations,
> but eventually even a bigger yawn. I know it's early days yet and it
> can only get better, but the signs are not good. The speed gains are
> not as great as everyone expected, the size of resulting executables
> is truly horrendous, and the initial compiler selection was not
> terribly inspirational either. (I think I'll save my meagre
> micro-economy fortune for the real McCoy, a native compiler...)
>
> The real issues have not been tackled. There are not that many of them
> currently on my list, just two: (1) more sophisticated namespace
> handling, and (2) better, smarter tools and/or structures for
> interfacing with the outside world.
>
> What do you say, Robert? Even your most faithful followers are getting
> increasingly restless.
>
> jiri
