1. Euphoria needs more popularity!
And here is an easy way to bring it:
On download.com, there have been a total of 10 votes.
7 of them were thumbs up.
9 of them wrote reviews.
A good programming language should have plenty of talk about it.
I would encourage EVERYONE on this mailing list to submit a thumbs up/down
on Euphoria, PREFERABLY write a good review. That would be awesome.
People I would especially encourage to write reviews:
Irv mullins
Al Getz
Tommy Carlier
Unkmar
Derek Parnell
Pete Lomax
Matt Lewis
It's not that hard to write a review! You do have to sign up at download.com
if you haven't already, and you also have to provide your email address, BUT
THEY DO NOT SPAM YOU: I have been a member for years now and haven't gotten
a single email I didn't want!
William Heimbigner
icxcnika at hotpop.com
Visit the UBoard - Forceful Signups Removed! -
http://uboard.proboards32.com - Threaded discussion, improved searching,
human moderating, graphical smileys, better formatting abilities (now what
else was there...)
Visit my website: http://www.geocities.com/icxcnika123
2. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:55:22 -0500, William Heimbigner
<icxcnika at hotpop.com> wrote:
> It's not that hard to write a review! You do have to sign up at download.com
> if you haven't already, and you also have to provide your email address, BUT
> THEY DO NOT SPAM YOU: I have been a member for years now and haven't gotten
> a single email I didn't want!
Well, for that I would recommend mailinator... www.mailinator.com
Don't give anyone your email address if you don't want them to email
you. Simple as that.
--
MrTrick
3. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:55, William Heimbigner wrote:
>
>
> And here is an easy way to bring it:
> On download.com, there have been a total of 10 votes.
> 7 of them were thumbs up.
> 9 of them wrote reviews.
> A good programming language should have plenty of talk about it.
> I would encourage EVERYONE on this mailing list to submit a thumbs up/down
> on Euphoria, PREFERABLY write a good review. That would be awesome.
> People I would especially encourage to write reviews:
>
> Irv mullins
> Al Getz
> Tommy Carlier
> Unkmar
> Derek Parnell
> Pete Lomax
> Matt Lewis
That's probably going to result in a one-sided point of view. What about David
Cuny, Jiri, Orkim, Robsz, and the rest of us?
Kat
4. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:55, William Heimbigner wrote:
>
> >
> > And here is an easy way to bring it:
> > On download.com, there have been a total of 10 votes.
> > 7 of them were thumbs up.
> > 9 of them wrote reviews.
> > A good programming language should have plenty of talk about it.
> > I would encourage EVERYONE on this mailing list to submit a thumbs
up/down
> > on Euphoria, PREFERABLY write a good review. That would be awesome.
> > People I would especially encourage to write reviews:
> >
> > Irv mullins
> > Al Getz
> > Tommy Carlier
> > Unkmar
> > Derek Parnell
> > Pete Lomax
> > Matt Lewis
>
> That's probably going to result in a one-sided point of view. What about
David
> Cuny, Jiri, Orkim, Robsz, and the rest of us?
>
What can I say? I don't have time to mention everyone on the ML who posts
more than 10 messages per month!
> Kat
>
>
>
>
5. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kat"
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
>
> On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:55, William Heimbigner wrote:
> >
> > And here is an easy way to bring it:
> > On download.com, there have been a total of 10 votes.
> > 7 of them were thumbs up.
> > 9 of them wrote reviews.
> > A good programming language should have plenty of talk about it.
> > I would encourage EVERYONE on this mailing list to submit a thumbs
up/down
> > on Euphoria, PREFERABLY write a good review. That would be awesome.
> > People I would especially encourage to write reviews:
> >
> > Irv mullins
> > Al Getz
> > Tommy Carlier
> > Unkmar
> > Derek Parnell
> > Pete Lomax
> > Matt Lewis
>
> That's probably going to result in a one-sided point of view. What about
David
> Cuny, Jiri, Orkim, Robsz, and the rest of us?
>
> Kat
>
Come on Kat, That's just the first names that came to his mind. And I'm
not saying that just because my name was listed. I'm actually a bit
shocked
that I was mentioned. orkim isn't a high profile kind of guy, so I'm not
exactly
surprised that he didn't get listed. David Cuny is a bit of an old
schooler.
You don't see him around much any more. I'm not surprised that William
being relatively new around here just didn't think of him. Same goes for
Jiri.
Pete Eberlein has been seen enough lately that he shouldn't have been
forgotten. You not making the list is lopsided, but then again, I don't
have
as much praises to state about euphoria as I use to. No, The languange
hasn't gotten worse. Yes, it has gotten better. But it definately hasn't
kept
up with my needs. It hasn't gotten anywhere close to keeping up.
Lists are ridiculous.
How about this newer list?
Kat
mic
Irv mullins
Al Getz
Tommy Carlier
Derek Parnell
Pete Lomax
Matt Lewis
David Cuny
Rob Sazaly
Elliott Sales de Andrade
Lucius L. Hilley III
Juergen Luethje
Igor Kachan
CK Lester
Travis Beaty
Jason Mirwald
Mario Steele
Chris Bensler
aku saya
Patrick Barnes
Tommy Carlier
CoJaBo
Matt Lewis
Tone Skoda
Hayden McKay
Pete Lomax
Andy Serpa
Bernard Ryan
Daniel Kluss
Alexandear Toresson
Dan Moyer
Marc Giao
Chris Burch
rudy toews
Christian Cuvier
don cole
Brian Broker
Greg Haberek
Craig Welch
Guillermo Bonvehi
sixs
Jonas Temple
Tom Reinhart
Jordah Ferguson
Travis Ferguson
Judith Evans
Terry Constant
George Walters
Rolf Schroder
Andy Drummond
Wolf
Michelle Rogers
Martin Stachon
OtterDad
Christopher Stone
Rubens Monteiro Luciano
R. Stowasser
Prasanta
Andrew Hall
Mike Nelson
John F Dutcher
Unkmar
6. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
I know I haven't been very vocal on the forum lately, but I still use
Euphoria. Shouldn't my name be on the list too?
7. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Unkmar wrote:
> How about this newer list?
...
> CK Lester
...
Wooo hooo! I made the list! Oh, the places I'll go now... :D
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
8. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Chris Burch <chriscrylex at aol.com>
Sep 15, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 16, 2004
cklester wrote:
>
> Unkmar wrote:
>
> > How about this newer list?
>
> ...
> > CK Lester
> ...
>
> Wooo hooo! I made the list! Oh, the places I'll go now... :D
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> <a
> href="http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/">http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/</a>
>
And whats really surprising, is so did I!
Chris
9. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
Sep 15, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 16, 2004
Unkmar wrote:
[snip]
>
> Kat
> mic
> Irv mullins
> Al Getz
> Tommy Carlier
> Pete Lomax
> Matt Lewis
> David Cuny
> Rob Sazaly
> Elliott Sales de Andrade
> Lucius L. Hilley III
> Juergen Luethje
> Igor Kachan
> CK Lester
> Travis Beaty
> Jason Mirwald
> Mario Steele
> Chris Bensler
> aku saya
> Patrick Barnes
> Tommy Carlier
> CoJaBo
> Matt Lewis
> Tone Skoda
> Hayden McKay
> Pete Lomax
> Andy Serpa
> Bernard Ryan
> Daniel Kluss
> Alexandear Toresson
> Dan Moyer
> Marc Giao
> Chris Burch
> rudy toews
> Christian Cuvier
> don cole
> Brian Broker
> Greg Haberek
> Craig Welch
> Guillermo Bonvehi
> sixs
> Jonas Temple
> Tom Reinhart
> Jordah Ferguson
> Travis Ferguson
> Judith Evans
> Terry Constant
> George Walters
> Rolf Schroder
> Andy Drummond
> Wolf
> Michelle Rogers
> Martin Stachon
> OtterDad
> Christopher Stone
> Rubens Monteiro Luciano
> R. Stowasser
> Prasanta
> Andrew Hall
> Mike Nelson
> John F Dutcher
To paraphrase an ancient sage ...
"I would not want to be in any club that would accept me as a member"
- Grouch Marx
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
10. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sep 15, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 16, 2004
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:35:35 -0400, Lucius Hilley
<l3euphoria at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>How about this newer list?
>Kat
<snip>
>Pete Lomax
>Matt Lewis
<snip>
>Matt Lewis
<snip>
>Pete Lomax
We mentioned twice? How nice 
)
Yet Kat appear, just once I fear 
(
SCNR
11. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
DerekP made my point better than I did by removing his name from the list.
but, Only after I took the time of making a large list of names.
And sure, I left out a few names. I only when through the past 2 months
of emails. And I didn't pick every single name. I intentionally skipped some
known newbies. and intentionally picked a few others. Those that appear
to have learn some hard things rather quickly.
My point is that any list of people that should cast a vote about Euphoria
would be short sited and pointless.
Granted, I am flattered that my name made the initial list. But I was
easily
able to think of many other more important folks than myself. Pete
Eberlein,
Jason Mirwald, and Elliott Sales de Andrade are few of those names.
They have contributed in many ways that I can only aspire to do.
I'm aware that my simple hilleyonline.com site is likely one of the main
reasons I was listed. It is extremely old. But has apparently aged well.
unkmar
PS: Chris Bensler did votedat download.com, A long time ago.
12. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
--0-827612077-1095277103=:99259
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Euphorians
I agree with Kat that a balanced view of things would best serve the
Euphoria community (although I have no idea whether the list of people
in her email represents a balanced view or not - they are all people
whose contributions to the EUforum I have enjoyed immensely since I
joined the Euphoria community).
I have found Euphoria to be a wonderful language to work with but I do
feel that there is a downside to using it. I constantly oscillate back
and forth between Python and Euphoria and was initially drawn to
Euphoria by the promise of being able to speed up an application that
ran like molasses when coded in Python.
Now I don't want to compare apples and oranges and I certainly don't
want to start a flame war about Python Vs. Euphoria - I use and love
BOTH languages but for different reasons. Python shortcomings are
mostly about its performance as an interpreted language, but things
are improving all the time and there is now a significant body of
know-how and a whole bunch of software tools to address this
performance issue (Psyco, Pyrex, weave, Numeric Python etc. etc.).
Euphoria still wins hands-down in this respect however and for that
(amongst its many other charms - we love it!)
To compare the Python community to the Euphoria community is in some
sense grossly unfair given the difference in scale between the two,
but every time I go back to use Python, I am astounded at the sheer
array of pre-built libraries and Python tools that are available - not
only their number, but the quality and maturity of them. The GUI
interfaces are incredibly well thought out, robust and very mature.
wxPython or PyGTK offer practically unlimited scope for building
graphical applications that look and feel utterly professional. They
have also contributed to the superb roster of Python development tools
such as code-aware editors and IDEs. As a further example, if you find
yourself writing a lot of mathematical code (as I do), there is hardly
any corner of modern mathematics for which there isn't already a
comprehensive Python library or toolkit. The modularity of Python with
its packages, modules and namespaces (and the wonderful 'distutils')
makes all this stuff work together
very easily indeed - and without having to reinvent the wheel each
time, one can quickly create superb and robust Python applications.
The ability to build the Python interpreter directly into the app as a
scripting language should not be overlooked either.
I really feel that if Euphoria is going to grow significantly as a
programming language, it could do a lot worse than emulate some of the
successes of the Python community. The issue of modules and namespaces
has been batted around for some time in the EUforum and would seem to
be a step in the right direction. The OOPS thing is probably a
non-issue since it already exists as an option for Euphoria developers
(if they want it) and the purists always drone on about Python not
being 'pure' OOPS anyway. But the kind of 'modular
re-usable-lego-building-blocks' paradigm that pervades Python
definitely makes it easier to share code in a big community.
As the person who started this thread so rightly observed, Euphoria
needs to be more popular and widespread in order for there to be the
demand to create (and share) all these fabulous tools. In a sense, it
really is very unfair of me to compare the resources of the Python
community to those of the much (much) smaller Euphoria community - but
just because that's how it is now doesn't have to mean that we
couldn't aspire to something similar for Euphoria. I guess the big
question is: 'What would it take for Euphoria to become as popular as
Python?" Should an Open Source version of Euphoria be considered? -
something that could be developed by a community of users with changes
being included in the "official" releases based upon the decisons of a
sub-community of steering users (RDS could continue to sell tools like
the shrouder and the C translator). BTW: I have no right to tell RDS
what they should do with their property nor am I saying that this is
what should be done (it may be
dreadful idea!) - I am just trying to stimulate a discussion about
how Euphoria and its user community might develop in the future.
These are just my humble opinions - please don't flame me becuase you
think I'm being hard on Euphoria, I'm really not - I think Euphoria is
fantastic and the small community of Euphoria users never ceases to
impress me with with its creativity, energy and sheer resourcefulness.
I just happen to think that we can learn a lot from the success of Python.
Best
Gordon
Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:55, William Heimbigner wrote:
>
>
> And here is an easy way to bring it:
> On download.com, there have been a total of 10 votes.
> 7 of them were thumbs up.
> 9 of them wrote reviews.
> A good programming language should have plenty of talk about it.
> I would encourage EVERYONE on this mailing list to submit a thumbs up/down
> on Euphoria, PREFERABLY write a good review. That would be awesome.
> People I would especially encourage to write reviews:
>
> Irv mullins
> Al Getz
> Tommy Carlier
> Unkmar
> Derek Parnell
> Pete Lomax
> Matt Lewis
That's probably going to result in a one-sided point of view. What
about David
Cuny, Jiri, Orkim, Robsz, and the rest of us?
Kat
13. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
On 15 Sep 2004, at 9:35, Lucius Hilley wrote:
<snip>
> You not making the list is lopsided, but then again, I don't
> have
> as much praises to state about euphoria as I use to. No, The languange
> hasn't gotten worse. Yes, it has gotten better. But it definately hasn't
> kept
> up with my needs. It hasn't gotten anywhere close to keeping up.
<snip>
One hasto only look at PHP, PERL, C, or each new Basic that pops up each
day to see Euphoria is dragging tail in the mud. There are some mighty
useful features of Eu that i use in every program, and there are some very
frustrating drawbacks (and i do mean the occasional day i spend
concentrating on the syntax of Eu instead of the goal of the program, to get
around the lack of features which are present in other "LISPy" languages
(lua, prolog,scheme, etc)). It's sad some good programmers went to find
greener pastures.
Kat
14. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Kat wrote:
> One hasto only look at PHP, PERL, C, or each new Basic that pops up each
> day to see Euphoria is dragging tail in the mud. There are some mighty
> useful features of Eu that i use in every program, and there are some very
> frustrating drawbacks (and i do mean the occasional day i spend
> concentrating on the syntax of Eu instead of the goal of the program, to get
> around the lack of features which are present in other "LISPy" languages
> (lua, prolog,scheme, etc)). It's sad some good programmers went to find
> greener pastures.
Make that 'many' good programmers.
The problem is not that Euphoria lacks these features, the problem is
that there are only two chances that useful features will ever be added:
slim, and none. That's what is so discouraging.
I see no reason whatsoever why Rob should not just freeze Euphoria at
2.4 (or 2.5), and then devote his time to implementing things which his
customers have been asking for. Experiment a little, for cryin' out loud!
You're allowed more than one good idea per lifetime, you know.
Irv
15. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Version 2.0 Official Release March 25, 1998
+ 12 months
Version 2.1 Official Release for WIN32 + DOS32 March 29, 1999
+ 10 months
Version 2.2 Official Release for WIN32+DOS32 January 14, 2000
+ 25 months
Version 2.3 Official Release February 11, 2002
+ 18 months
Version 2.4 Official Release July 3, 2003
+ 18 months?
Version 2.5 ?December, 2004?
That's right, we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years. Not Fast.
RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but
there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them.
I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
releases, instead of this cold molasses. Perfection is not so nearly
as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
use is a much better prospect.
Robert,
Are you using beta testers?
Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
Do you have a formal(-ish) issue log that you are working through?
Do you need more man-hours in the day to work on Euphoria?
Sorry to sound so frustrated, but I am. I love Euphoria and I continue
to champion it, but I also begin to tire.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
16. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Derek Parnell wrote:
> ...we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years.
Interesting and insightful...
> I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> releases, instead of this cold molasses. Perfection is not so nearly
> as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> use is a much better prospect.
I agree.
Well-deserved props to Rob, but let's get on with it! There's nothing
to lose... is there?
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
17. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Derek Parnell wrote:
> I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> releases, instead of this cold molasses. Perfection is not so nearly
> as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> use is a much better prospect.
I agree. I'd be perfectly willing to cough up the registration fees on
a shorter schedule for a more constantly improving Euphoria.
Matt Lewis
18. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Derek Parnell wrote:
> RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
> Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
>
> Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but
> there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them.
>
> I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> releases, instead of this cold molasses. Perfection is not so nearly
> as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> use is a much better prospect.
As far as I can see, there is no technical reason for Rob not to
release alpha or beta versions for people to test. He's got that
warning routine in there. Why not simply print a warning that
"function foo() is experimental - do not use for production work",
until foo() has either been verified to work properly, fixed, or
dropped. That would eliminate any possible complaints about Euphoria
being "unstable".
People actually do want to help, but as it stands, the only way they
can contribute to Euphoria itself is to add to the "wish lists".
If wishes were fishes....
Irv
19. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
irv mullins wrote:
>>....
> If wishes were fishes....
>
> Irv
>
I'd be stuffed and would weigh 600lbs!
20. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Derek Parnell wrote:
> RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
> Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
> I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> releases, instead of this cold molasses. Perfection is not so nearly
> as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> use is a much better prospect.
>
> Robert,
> Are you using beta testers?
> Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
> Do you have a formal(-ish) issue log that you are working through?
> Do you need more man-hours in the day to work on Euphoria?
>
> Sorry to sound so frustrated, but I am. I love Euphoria and I continue
> to champion it, but I also begin to tire.
>
Besides the frequency of releases, anyone else ever notice how silent RDS
is on the subject when this is brought up? I'm guessing Rob doesn't
get involved in these discussions because whatever his reasoning is for
frequency/features of new releases someone won't like it.
Rob, I know you're reading this...
Like Derek, I too love the language and will continue to use Euphoria.
That being said, there are several features that I would like to see in
the language but have little hope that they will ever exist... threads
... ability to create a .dll/.so without translating/compiling ... better
exception handling (though this might improve with the next release).
But hey, let's face it. NO language is ever without it's "wish list".
Jonas
21. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Derek Parnell wrote:
> Version 2.0 Official Release March 25, 1998
> + 12 months
> Version 2.1 Official Release for WIN32 + DOS32 March 29, 1999
> + 10 months
> Version 2.2 Official Release for WIN32+DOS32 January 14, 2000
> + 25 months
During that time I spent a year designing, developing and porting the
Euphoria to C Translator to 4 platforms and 7 different C compilers.
I should have merged that information into the release notes.
> Version 2.3 Official Release February 11, 2002
> + 18 months
> Version 2.4 Official Release July 3, 2003
> + 18 months?
> Version 2.5 ?December, 2004?
> That's right, we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years. Not Fast.
Maybe I should call the next one 3.0. Will that help?
Isn't Win32Lib officially still an "alpha" release, 0.60.5,
after those same 6.5 years?
> RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
> Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
>
> Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but
> there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them.
Yeah, I heard you can produce a baby in 1 month by
assigning 9 women to the job.
> I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> releases, instead of this cold molasses.
That's what I keep telling myself.
It just never works out that way.
There's just a lot of overhead in getting
a new release out, plus when do I charge for an upgrade?
I'll give it some thought.
> Perfection is not so nearly
> as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> use is a much better prospect.
>
> Robert,
> Are you using beta testers?
Every official release comes after an alpha and a beta
release. Earlier releases would waste my time on
handling a lot of bug reports and questions. I have tons of
existing Euphoria code I can use as testing fodder.
> Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
Not besides Junko, but very soon the entire world will
be able to inspect the front-end of Euphoria, and everyone will
own a complete Euphoria interpreter with 100% Euphoria source code,
able to run all Euphoria programs on all platforms.
> Do you have a formal(-ish) issue log that you are working through?
Yes.
> Do you need more man-hours in the day to work on Euphoria?
Of course.
> Sorry to sound so frustrated, but I am. I love Euphoria and I continue
> to champion it, but I also begin to tire.
I thank you for your patience, and your tremendous
efforts on Win32Lib. Euphoria would be in deep trouble without you.
I'd like to speed up my progress too. I have been slacking
off a bit, but you have to give me credit for sticking with
this project for 15 years (since initial design - 1.0 was
released 11 years ago). But I would certainly turn it over to
the masses if I couldn't or didn't want to continue.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
22. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> During that time I spent a year designing, developing and porting the
> Euphoria to C Translator to 4 platforms and 7 different C compilers.
> I should have merged that information into the release notes.
>
Well, I guess I have to retract my earlier statement...RDS does get
involved in these discussions!
> > I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> > releases, instead of this cold molasses.
>
> That's what I keep telling myself.
> It just never works out that way.
> There's just a lot of overhead in getting
> a new release out, plus when do I charge for an upgrade?
When to charge for upgrade? WHENEVER YOU WANT!!!!!!!!!!! It's your
product! Obviously if you charge for every little change then you'll
hack some people off. I would even be open to a "maintenance" based
system where we could pay a fixed $ every year for the priveledge of
getting the upgrades whenever they come out.
OR...go to a V.R.M system and charge whenever the R changes? That would
be very similar to what you're doing now and if you change the R
every year you'd be getting about the same result.
> > Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
>
> Not besides Junko, but very soon the entire world will
> be able to inspect the front-end of Euphoria, and everyone will
> own a complete Euphoria interpreter with 100% Euphoria source code,
> able to run all Euphoria programs on all platforms.
Rob, from my perspective I have very little interest in the front-end
of the interpreter or having a 100% Euphoria-based interpreter. What I
need is a stable product that solves the problem at hand. My guess would
be that I'm not alone on this...
Jonas
23. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Rob, I would just like some HOOKS so that it would be
easier to inteface Euphoria code to other langauges
like ASM, CPP then Euphoria would be more extendable.
Bernie
My files in archive:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/w32engin.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/mixedlib.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/eu_engin.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/win32eru.zip
24. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Bernard Ryan wrote:
>
>
> Rob, I would just like some HOOKS so that it would be
> easier to inteface Euphoria code to other langauges
> like ASM, CPP then Euphoria would be more extendable.
>
What sort of hooks are you suggesting? With the cdecl convention and
the ability to call function pointers through c_func/proc, we can do
this now. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head
is that we can only have up to 9 parameters in a callback.
Matt Lewis
25. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
On 16 Sep 2004, at 10:59, Jonas Temple wrote:
> Rob, from my perspective I have very little interest in the front-end
> of the interpreter or having a 100% Euphoria-based interpreter. What I
> need is a stable product that solves the problem at hand. My guess would
> be that I'm not alone on this...
I am very interested, mostly because splitting the execution unit from the
compiler and interpreter leads to all the features everyone has asked for,
including goto, string execution, pointers, Bernie's "hooks", case tables,
conditional type checking necessary for record types, importing C code,
calling other languages, etc.. It's probably to RDS's detriment that these
added features won't be part of Eu's core,,, partly for the value added to Eu's
income, and partly because it's likely differently enabled user versions won't
play nicely together.
Kat
26. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Bernard Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Sep 16, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 17, 2004
Matt Lewis wrote:
> What sort of hooks are you suggesting? With the cdecl convention and
> the ability to call function pointers through c_func/proc, we can do
> this now. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head
> is that we can only have up to 9 parameters in a callback.
>
Matt:
I would like someway to deal with setjump()
Automatic ways of dealing with this pointers.
Or someway through an interface to call CPP
code directly from Euphoria easily without
having to translate to "C".
Bernie
My files in archive:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/w32engin.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/mixedlib.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/eu_engin.zip
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/win32eru.zip
27. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
Sep 16, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 17, 2004
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> > Version 2.0 Official Release March 25, 1998
> > + 12 months
> > Version 2.1 Official Release for WIN32 + DOS32 March 29, 1999
> > + 10 months
> > Version 2.2 Official Release for WIN32+DOS32 January 14, 2000
> > + 25 months
>
> During that time I spent a year designing, developing and porting the
> Euphoria to C Translator to 4 platforms and 7 different C compilers.
> I should have merged that information into the release notes.
Like I said, a shitload of work. Too much for a one-man team, I'd argue.
> > Version 2.3 Official Release February 11, 2002
> > + 18 months
> > Version 2.4 Official Release July 3, 2003
> > + 18 months?
> > Version 2.5 ?December, 2004?
> > That's right, we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years. Not Fast.
>
> Maybe I should call the next one 3.0. Will that help?
Not one bit.
> Isn't Win32Lib officially still an "alpha" release, 0.60.5,
> after those same 6.5 years?
And I took in on around v0.50. How many releases does that mean? A least
15 in the same time as your 5. The literal version number is not important.
The number of releases is a more telling statistic.
> > RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
> > Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
> >
> > Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but
> > there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them.
>
> Yeah, I heard you can produce a baby in 1 month by
> assigning 9 women to the job.
I know you are not serious about that statement, but that might be
a problem too. It seems that you are saying that your work can never
be helped by using multiple people. Prove it!
> > I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> > releases, instead of this cold molasses.
>
> That's what I keep telling myself.
> It just never works out that way.
How we we know - we've not seen you try it.
> There's just a lot of overhead in getting
> a new release out,
Sure is! You could do with a hand.
>plus when do I charge for an upgrade?
Whenever you wanted to.
> I'll give it some thought.
Yeah, you do that. So version 2.6 is scheduled for when ... February 2006?
> > Perfection is not so nearly
> > as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet
> > my needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> > use is a much better prospect.
What? No comment? This seems to be the area of greatest consensus.
> > Robert,
> > Are you using beta testers?
>
> Every official release comes after an alpha and a beta
> release. Earlier releases would waste my time on
> handling a lot of bug reports and questions.
Heaven forbid! We wouldn't want to find all those bugs so early would we?
Again, if this is a lot of work, then maybe you could do with help?
> I have tons of existing Euphoria code I can use as testing fodder.
I should hope so. This is great for regression testing, but what about
planned test cases, a test plan, a formal Euphoria test suite?
> > Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
>
> Not besides Junko,
Then you are doing yourself a disservice. Inspection/Reviewing is the
most cost effective method of finding bugs. It finds more than testing
and finds them earlier.
>but very soon the entire world will
> be able to inspect the front-end of Euphoria, and everyone will
> own a complete Euphoria interpreter with 100% Euphoria source code,
> able to run all Euphoria programs on all platforms.
So you intended to have the work reviewed after it is released. Not
worlds best practice, I can assure you.
> > Do you have a formal(-ish) issue log that you are working through?
>
> Yes.
Great! Well done.
> > Do you need more man-hours in the day to work on Euphoria?
>
> Of course.
So get more people to give you those man-hours! I'd pay you
to be on your team.
> > Sorry to sound so frustrated, but I am. I love Euphoria and I continue
> > to champion it, but I also begin to tire.
>
> I thank you for your patience, and your tremendous
> efforts on Win32Lib. Euphoria would be in deep trouble without you.
Bullshit. Its a great product that could be well by itself,
but has been left behind by the competition.
> I'd like to speed up my progress too. I have been slacking
> off a bit, but you have to give me credit for sticking with
> this project for 15 years (since initial design - 1.0 was
> released 11 years ago).
I respect your committment and your efforts. You had created a
revolutionary product that deserved more air time. RDS's development
methodology is the major reason for Euphoria's lack of success - not
the product itself.
> But I would certainly turn it over to
> the masses if I couldn't or didn't want to continue.
How about loosening the apron-strings a bit earlier than that? Your
baby needs to grow up.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
28. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by Terry Constant <EUforum at terryconstant.com>
Sep 16, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 17, 2004
Rob,
You have done well. In summer 1998 I stopped using EUphoria
when I began developing for a company who provided a very
popular scripting language in the Win32 world. This year the
company was bought by a larger company on the west coast and I
ceased developing for them. I decided to come back to
Euphoria, which I had always liked. I was pleasantly surprised
how well all of my old routines continued to work after such a
long time. WELL DONE!.
Though I truly liked the scripting language that we (at the
company mentioned above) developed. In every release 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, we broke some portions of
previous scripts. The improvements we made were nice, but
every release was a bit of a hassle for us and some customers.
Scripts written (except for the most simple and basic) in
1998, simply would not run in our releases in 2003-2004. The
fact that many of my old Euphoria scripts do run is a kudo for
RDS.
I began programming in 1967. I have HAD to make thousands of
changes in programs and scripts over the years because of
changes/improvements in languages. Though I understand the
perspectives of several people who have responded, I do want
to say that NOT having to change programs/scripts with every
release is a blessing that I appreciate. (Doesn't mean there
aren't some things I would like to have in the language. Just
saying that there is a blessing in slow stability that we
should not forget.)
One responder (I forget who) indicated that he/she was not so
much interested in fiddling with the interpreter source code
as much as working with a good language. I am in that boat. I
don't want to work in C. I want to work in Euphoria. So, to
me, Euphoria being stable and robust is important.
For practical reasons, I have finally started working almost
exclusively with MS OSes (not because I like them or MS).
In the current scripting world of MS, I would like to see very
robust and RDS provided OLE/ActiveX/COM abilities/routines. If
I had this one official addition in Euphoria, then my
abilities and communication with other tools would be
enhanced. (I would like to see Euphoria in WSH, but I don't
see a realistic way for you to do it.)
Also, I want to program/script in Euphoria. For me, source
code for an interpreter is of little interest. I am tired of
programming in C. I want to work in Euphoria. I want Euphoria,
the end product for me to use to be robust.
Just my two cents in this current thread.
Terry Constant
29. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com>
Sep 16, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 17, 2004
I second all that Derek said below:
On 16 Sep 2004, at 15:03, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > Derek Parnell wrote:
> > > Version 2.0 Official Release March 25, 1998
> > > + 12 months
> > > Version 2.1 Official Release for WIN32 + DOS32 March 29, 1999
> > > + 10 months
> > > Version 2.2 Official Release for WIN32+DOS32 January 14, 2000
> > > + 25 months
> >
> > During that time I spent a year designing, developing and porting the
> > Euphoria to C Translator to 4 platforms and 7 different C compilers.
> > I should have merged that information into the release notes.
>
>
> Like I said, a shitload of work. Too much for a one-man team, I'd argue.
>
> > > Version 2.3 Official Release February 11, 2002
> > > + 18 months
> > > Version 2.4 Official Release July 3, 2003
> > > + 18 months?
> > > Version 2.5 ?December, 2004?
> > > That's right, we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years. Not Fast.
> >
> > Maybe I should call the next one 3.0. Will that help?
>
> Not one bit.
>
> > Isn't Win32Lib officially still an "alpha" release, 0.60.5,
> > after those same 6.5 years?
>
>
> And I took in on around v0.50. How many releases does that mean? A least
> 15 in the same time as your 5. The literal version number is not important.
> The
> number of releases is a more telling statistic.
>
> > > RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help.
> > > Could this be another reason for people being discouraged?
> > >
> > > Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but
> > > there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them.
> >
> > Yeah, I heard you can produce a baby in 1 month by
> > assigning 9 women to the job.
>
> I know you are not serious about that statement, but that might be
> a problem too. It seems that you are saying that your work can never
> be helped by using multiple people. Prove it!
>
>
> > > I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch)
> > > releases, instead of this cold molasses.
> >
> > That's what I keep telling myself.
> > It just never works out that way.
>
> How we we know - we've not seen you try it.
>
> > There's just a lot of overhead in getting
> > a new release out,
>
> Sure is! You could do with a hand.
>
> >plus when do I charge for an upgrade?
>
> Whenever you wanted to.
>
> > I'll give it some thought.
>
> Yeah, you do that. So version 2.6 is scheduled for when ... February 2006?
>
> > > Perfection is not so nearly
> > > as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet my
> > > needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still
> > > use
> > > is a much better prospect.
>
> What? No comment? This seems to be the area of greatest consensus.
>
> > > Robert,
> > > Are you using beta testers?
> >
> > Every official release comes after an alpha and a beta
> > release. Earlier releases would waste my time on
> > handling a lot of bug reports and questions.
>
> Heaven forbid! We wouldn't want to find all those bugs so early would we?
> Again, if this is a lot of work, then maybe you could do with help?
>
> > I have tons of existing Euphoria code I can use as testing fodder.
>
> I should hope so. This is great for regression testing, but what about
> planned test cases, a test plan, a formal Euphoria test suite?
>
> > > Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code?
> >
> > Not besides Junko,
>
<snip>
>
>
>
30. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Terry Constant wrote:
> One responder (I forget who) indicated that he/she was not so
> much interested in fiddling with the interpreter source code
> as much as working with a good language. I am in that boat. I
> don't want to work in C. I want to work in Euphoria. So, to
> me, Euphoria being stable and robust is important.
The interpreter source code that I'm releasing is 100% Euphoria.
No C. I assume that most people will not be interested in
working on the interpreter source, but a few will. Some positive
things I'm hoping to achieve with this are:
- hundreds of people reading the source, finding bugs and/or
suggesting improvements. Since I'm using the same Euphoria-coded
front end in the official interpreter (not to mention the
translator and the binder), I can copy useful changes directly
into my code.
- a greater degree of confidence that Euphoria can be continued
with or without RDS
- people can develop support tools such as:
- an interpreter with a fancy Windows GUI debugger
- source code analysis tools, such as symbol table
dump, stricter semantic checks, statistics
- lots of other things I can't even imagine
- open source "believers" will have to admit that Euphoria
is (in a sense) open source
- anyone can add or modify a front-end or back-end feature.
In some cases I will incorporate that feature in my version,
once people have played with it and refined it for a while.
- the level of understanding of Euphoria, and the interest in
Euphoria from an educational point of view might increase.
Many, if not most, Euphoria users are hobbyists who are
as interested in learning how a tool works, as in actually
using the tool.
This could spawn a few competitors, but I think
as long as I keep improving the RDS version, competitors
will have a hard time grabbing market share. My official
version, with a C-coded back-end, will be faster.
You can easily translate the 100% Euphoria version to C to
get a pretty fast .exe, but it's still significantly slower
than my carefully hand-coded C back-end.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
31. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
Robert Craig wrote:
> - the level of understanding of Euphoria, and the interest in
> Euphoria from an educational point of view might increase.
> Many, if not most, Euphoria users are hobbyists who are
> as interested in learning how a tool works, as in actually
> using the tool.
Rob,
I'm a hobbyist ... in that I don't program for a living. I looked for
a language to help me write some specific applications for myself (to
do with learning Japanese). I settled on Euphoria, and I'm glad that I
did. I'm happy with it, although it has been a steep learning curve.
Having said that, I must say that I have *zero* interest in how the
tool works. I just want it to do the job as advertized.
Hope this sample of one helps ...
Regards,
--
Craig
32. Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
> ... everyone will own a complete Euphoria interpreter with 100%
> Euphoria source code, able to run all Euphoria programs on all
> platforms.
>
This is very exciting for me and I hope to see this soon.
