1. Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Euphoria is a great language, however, there are a few things that I think are
preventing it from gaining even more popularity. I am curious as to the users
opinions and feedback.
I'll focus on #1 as I can help there.
1. A standard library. One of the reasons Python is so popular is because when
you download and install it, you have just about everything you need (they take
it a bit to extremes though, I think). Now, on the contrary, with Euphoria, how
do I add two dates? How can I trim the whitespace off the end or beginning of a
sequence acting as a string? How do I split a string by spaces? How do I create a
hash table? etc... All of those can be done by downloads found in "The Archive"
but which one? Then find it. Then use one "split" function and then one of the
other libs you use requires a different "split" function, etc... Then, when
wrapping libraries it seems everyone has their own functions for peeking at
strings, assigning and checking functions, etc...
CK Lester already started on such a library. Submissions to The Archive seem to
show that such a thing is needed. There are others who have attempted at creating
unofficial standard libs. Euphoria has itself an include directory with euphoria
functions.
I am wondering, why not start building an official standard library that is
distributed with Euphoria? Not additions in C, but such helpers placed in
EUPHORIA/include ?? CK Lester has started on such a library.
I would be willing to start organizing such an addition by standardizing naming,
documenting functions in the standard .htx format and importantly, providing unit
tests for the functions and, in fact, functions that are already in existence in
Euphoria.
I would start on String functions, then Date and Time functions, the Hash
functions and move on from there. It would take a bit of work, but a solid week
of work on it, I think we would all be amazed at what could be done.
It would be a *fantastic* addition to 3.2.
2. The website is very old in appearance. It's very functional, which is of
course good but it needs a face lift. I invited a co-worker to visit
rapideuphoria.com and check out Euphoria. They saw the website, the flashing
banner "Simpler than basic, more powerful than C++, etc..." and thought it was a
toy from 1980. Seriously, the claim of more powerful than C++ is pretty
subjective and hard to substantiate.
3. Get Euphoria into the major Linux distributions. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
GenToo, FreeBSD, OpenSUSE, Mandrivia and others.
These are just some thoughts. Please comment, especially on #1. If the community
likes the idea, I would get started right away.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
2. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> I'll focus on #1 as I can help there.
>
> 1. A standard library. One of the reasons Python is so popular is because when
> you download and install it, you have just about everything you need (they
> take
> it a bit to extremes though, I think). Now, on the contrary, with Euphoria,
> how do I add two dates? How can I trim the whitespace off the end or beginning
> of a sequence acting as a string? How do I split a string by spaces? How do
> I create a hash table? etc... All of those can be done by downloads found in
> "The Archive" but which one? Then find it. Then use one "split" function and
> then one of the other libs you use requires a different "split" function,
> etc...
> Then, when wrapping libraries it seems everyone has their own functions for
> peeking at strings, assigning and checking functions, etc...
>
Jeremy:
If Python is so popular then why are you using Euphoria ?
Python is written in C++ and it is bloated with a lot of overhead
and it requires the user to understand C++ to create a new feature.
The reason there is no standard library in Euphoria is because
what is important to one user is not always important to other users.
If a user needs to accomplish something in Euphoria all the user has
to do is write the code because it requires no extra ordinary knowledge.
Bernie
My files in archive:
WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
3. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Jeremy:
>
> If Python is so popular then why are you using Euphoria ?
>
> Python is written in C++ and it is bloated with a lot of overhead
>
> and it requires the user to understand C++ to create a new feature.
>
> The reason there is no standard library in Euphoria is because
>
> what is important to one user is not always important to other users.
>
> If a user needs to accomplish something in Euphoria all the user has
>
> to do is write the code because it requires no extra ordinary knowledge.
Bernie,
I did not mean to imply that Python was at all better. I just said because of
it's standard library it has gained more popularity. I agree with you on python
and that's why I am using Euphoria. Now, I disagree with you on two things. 1st.
you say python is bloated. Yes, true, but you imply that adding a standard lib to
Euphoria would bloat it. If you do not want to use the functions provided in,
say, include/string.e, then you do not need to include it. 2nd. What is important
to one person is not to another. This is true, but there are a base set of
functions that are universally accepted as important. Almost all scripting and
rapid development languages I know of have the functions I mentioned. Again, if
you don't need them, you don't have to include them. However, take this into
consideration. You develop a function to split a string by spaces. It works,
great. However, now put that function into the public eye. John Doe sees that it
could be a tad faster by adding this one change and subtracting another. Great!
Your function now works the same, only faster. Now Jane Doe sees another
improvement.
This is what we get if we have a standardized library. We have 100 people
working on 1 function instead of 100 people working on their own versions of the
exact same function.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
4. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> 1. A standard library... with Euphoria,
> how do I add two dates? How can I trim the whitespace off the end or beginning
> of a sequence acting as a string? How do I split a string by spaces? How do
> I create a hash table? etc... All of those can be done by downloads found in
> "The Archive" but which one?
Just use EusLibs. :)
> I am wondering, why not start building an official standard library that is
> distributed with Euphoria? Not additions in C, but such helpers placed in
> EUPHORIA/include
> ?? CK Lester has started on such a library.
I think the point is to distribute a minimum source base and let the user
add on as necessary.
I agree that having a standard library package available at RDS would be
beneficial; I just don't think it necessarily has to come in the main
download. HOWEVER, I could be wrong. :)
> I would start on String functions, then Date and Time functions, the Hash
> functions
> and move on from there. It would take a bit of work, but a solid week of work
> on it, I think we would all be amazed at what could be done.
> 2. The website is very old in appearance.
Watch it! Rob doesn't like when you insult the web site. ;)
> 3. Get Euphoria into the major Linux distributions. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> GenToo, FreeBSD, OpenSUSE, Mandrivia and others.
I think this is being attempted. I even thought of doing a FreeBSD port, but
then real life interrupted.
Jeremy, I think all the code for a standard library has been written; it's
just a matter of 1) putting it all together (like EusLibs) and getting it
formatted (I made no attempt with EusLibs to format the code to make it
consistent), then 2) making it official (not like EusLibs).
Let me be a broken record and say: Go for it! :)
5. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> Jeremy, I think all the code for a standard library has been written; it's
> just a matter of 1) putting it all together (like EusLibs) and getting it
> formatted (I made no attempt with EusLibs to format the code to make it
> consistent), then 2) making it official (not like EusLibs).
Yes, indeed. No way was I thinking of writing it all from scratch! I guess my
original message did not indicate that. My thought was:
1. Start w/what exists.
2. Contact the original author and get permission
3. Format
4. Unit test
5. Document
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
6. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> c.k.lester wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy, I think all the code for a standard library has been written; it's
> > just a matter of 1) putting it all together (like EusLibs) and getting it
> > formatted (I made no attempt with EusLibs to format the code to make it
> > consistent), then 2) making it official (not like EusLibs).
>
> Yes, indeed. No way was I thinking of writing it all from scratch! I guess my
> original message did not indicate that. My thought was:
>
> 1. Start w/what exists.
> 2. Contact the original author and get permission
> 3. Format
> 4. Unit test
> 5. Document
>
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
Good luck!
May you succeed where others have failed.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
7. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Good luck!
>
> May you succeed where others have failed.
>
Well, I think the key to success is having it accepted as the official standard
library. w/o that, I think all are doomed to fail.
Right now the D language is having a crisis as 1/2 the apps/libs are written for
phobos (one runtime library) and the other 1/2 are for tangos (another runtime
library). Another collection of functions/procedures is just going to cause all
that more division if it's not the official standard.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
8. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Well, I think the key to success is having it accepted as the official
> standard
> library. w/o that, I think all are doomed to fail.
Who is going to stamp it "official?"
9. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think the key to success is having it accepted as the official
> > standard
> > library. w/o that, I think all are doomed to fail.
>
> Who is going to stamp it "official?"
That's why I posted here and was speaking about distributing w/Euphoria.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
10. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > > Well, I think the key to success is having it accepted as the official
> > > standard
> > > library. w/o that, I think all are doomed to fail.
> > Who is going to stamp it "official?"
> That's why I posted here and was speaking about distributing w/Euphoria.
I'm just wondering who will designate it as "standard" and if we can get Rob to
host it with the standard download of Euphoria. There's never been a link to
EusLibs, but there should be (in the interim of an official library release). :)
11. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
c.k.lester wrote:
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > c.k.lester wrote:
> > > Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > > > Well, I think the key to success is having it accepted as the official
> > > > standard
> > > > library. w/o that, I think all are doomed to fail.
> > > Who is going to stamp it "official?"
> > That's why I posted here and was speaking about distributing w/Euphoria.
>
> I'm just wondering who will designate it as "standard" and if we can get Rob
> to
> host it with the standard download of Euphoria. There's never been a link to
> EusLibs, but there should be (in the interim of an official library release).
> :)
I'm in favor of having more standard library routines
that people can use (or ignore). If it takes my
blessing to make something official and/or included in
the download package, that's fine with me.
I think we just need someone or some small group to
champion this idea. We'll never get everyone to agree
on every routine that should or shouldn't be included.
We need someone to put a stake in the ground and
get started (and not pay too much attention to the inevitable
naysayers who think Euphoria shouldn't be changed at all,
and if you don't like it, go elsewhere).
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
12. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of having more standard library routines
> that people can use (or ignore). If it takes my
> blessing to make something official and/or included in
> the download package, that's fine with me.
> I think we just need someone or some small group to
> champion this idea. We'll never get everyone to agree
> on every routine that should or shouldn't be included.
> We need someone to put a stake in the ground and
> get started (and not pay too much attention to the inevitable
> naysayers who think Euphoria shouldn't be changed at all,
> and if you don't like it, go elsewhere).
>
Rob,
This is **good** news. I would be willing to do this. I'll do a careful job of
function naming, documentation and testing.
Say it's OK, and I'll get started.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
13. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of having more standard library routines
> > that people can use (or ignore). If it takes my
> > blessing to make something official and/or included in
> > the download package, that's fine with me.
>
> Say it's OK, and I'll get started.
I think he just did. SO GET ON IT!!! :D
14. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Euphoria is a great language, however, there are a few things that I think are
> preventing it from gaining even more popularity. I am curious as to the users
> opinions and feedback.
>
> I'll focus on #1 as I can help there.
>
> 1. A standard library. One of the reasons Python is so popular is because when
> you download and install it, you have just about everything you need (they
> take
> it a bit to extremes though, I think). Now, on the contrary, with Euphoria,
> how do I add two dates? How can I trim the whitespace off the end or beginning
> of a sequence acting as a string? How do I split a string by spaces? How do
> I create a hash table? etc... All of those can be done by downloads found in
> "The Archive" but which one? Then find it. Then use one "split" function and
> then one of the other libs you use requires a different "split" function,
> etc...
> Then, when wrapping libraries it seems everyone has their own functions for
> peeking at strings, assigning and checking functions, etc...
>
> CK Lester already started on such a library. Submissions to The Archive seem
> to show that such a thing is needed. There are others who have attempted at
> creating unofficial standard libs. Euphoria has itself an include directory
> with euphoria functions.
>
> I am wondering, why not start building an official standard library that is
> distributed with Euphoria? Not additions in C, but such helpers placed in
> EUPHORIA/include
> ?? CK Lester has started on such a library.
>
> I would be willing to start organizing such an addition by standardizing
> naming,
> documenting functions in the standard .htx format and importantly, providing
> unit tests for the functions and, in fact, functions that are already in
> existence
> in Euphoria.
>
> I would start on String functions, then Date and Time functions, the Hash
> functions
> and move on from there. It would take a bit of work, but a solid week of work
> on it, I think we would all be amazed at what could be done.
>
> It would be a *fantastic* addition to 3.2.
>
> 2. The website is very old in appearance. It's very functional, which is of
> course good but it needs a face lift. I invited a co-worker to visit
> rapideuphoria.com
> and check out Euphoria. They saw the website, the flashing banner "Simpler
> than
> basic, more powerful than C++, etc..." and thought it was a toy from 1980.
> Seriously,
> the claim of more powerful than C++ is pretty subjective and hard to
> substantiate.
>
> 3. Get Euphoria into the major Linux distributions. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> GenToo, FreeBSD, OpenSUSE, Mandrivia and others.
>
> These are just some thoughts. Please comment, especially on #1. If the
> community
> likes the idea, I would get started right away.
>
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
I am in full agreement that a standard set of libraries is needed. This has been
attempted before but got bogged down with endless discussions and little was
produced. While most, if not all, of the desired functions are already in the
archive this is hardly an ideal situation. One of the biggest problems is the
complete lack of consistency. Some are well documented while others have
virtually none. There is a wide variety in code quality. Some libraries are
written by professional programmers while others are by new users. Many have had
little testing done.
The complete standard library need not be included in the distribution. The
website should have a prominent link to them and it should be clearly indicated
that they have official sanction. Any user could be reasonably certain that they
followed a defined standard and had been properly tested. This would be
particularly useful to a new user.
I really hope that this comes about. This needs to be controlled by one
individual or a small group. We must avoid the endless discussions about the
names of individual functions and what functions are to be included in what
files, etc. If this occurs nothing will ever be decided and nothing accomplished.
Larry Miller
15. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
- Posted by Jerry Story <story.jerry at g?ail.?om>
Apr 17, 2008
-
Last edited Apr 18, 2008
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> 3. Get Euphoria into the major Linux distributions. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> GenToo, FreeBSD, OpenSUSE, Mandrivia and others.
After that
4. Get wxEuphoria into the major Linux distributions.
Then there is a chance of
5. Get some programs based on wxEuphoria into the major Linux distributions.
16. Re: Giving Euphoria more of an appeal to others?
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at R?pidEuphor?a.com>
Apr 17, 2008
-
Last edited Apr 18, 2008
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of having more standard library routines
> > that people can use (or ignore). If it takes my
> > blessing to make something official and/or included in
> > the download package, that's fine with me.
> > I think we just need someone or some small group to
> > champion this idea. We'll never get everyone to agree
> > on every routine that should or shouldn't be included.
> > We need someone to put a stake in the ground and
> > get started (and not pay too much attention to the inevitable
> > naysayers who think Euphoria shouldn't be changed at all,
> > and if you don't like it, go elsewhere).
> >
>
> Rob,
>
> This is **good** news. I would be willing to do this. I'll do a careful job
> of function naming, documentation and testing.
>
> Say it's OK, and I'll get started.
It's OK.
Go for it.
Do something and let people suggest improvements.
You are in charge.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
