1. binding
What good is Euphoria 2.2 if you can't bind files, you have to buy it.
why include bind in 2.0 and not in 2.2 That's the main thing I need is
to be able to bind a file.
2. Re: binding
Good enough reason to pay the $29 and have what you
need, I wouldn't put my programs best interest in a warez
either. The bugs are prevalent.
Take it from a registered user, the ability to trace and profile
your program far outway the ability to bind for the simple
fact that, you'll be binding much sooner with higher quality
programs.
euman
----- Original Message -----
From: "C H" <computer_kid101 at coolemail.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 19:02
Subject: binding
> What good is Euphoria 2.2 if you can't bind files, you have to buy it.
> why include bind in 2.0 and not in 2.2 That's the main thing I need is
> to be able to bind a file.
>
>
3. Re: binding
--- C H <computer_kid101 at coolemail.com> wrote:
> What good is Euphoria 2.2 if you can't bind files,
> you have to buy it.
Before I got the full version I was bitching about
that too.
What good is a compiler if it can't produce programs?
But the whole idea behind Euphoria is that you try it
out first and buy it later once you learned how to
code in it and are ready for some serious coding.
I now found out the reason why there ain't many young
coders interested in Euphoria.
Even if they had the cash, a young coder ain't gonna
use it topay for something he found on a web page.
He'd rather go download DJGPP or something.
A young newbie coder usually (read: always) has the
following reason to start coding; He or she wants to
write his own computer game like the ones he played.
They'll be scared away by Euphoria because it doesn't
produce standalone executables, and doesn't provide
high quality graphics.
So they switch to DJGPP because it's free, and it has
Allegro for it. Or they use something like LCCWin or
the free Borland compiler, so they can use Direct X.
If I was developing Euphoria I'd be aiming for this
group. Euphoria is easy allready, if only it allowed
easy game creation...
80% of all software sold are computer games.
So it's not 'for babies' or something like that, to
advocate it.
> why include bind in 2.0 and not in 2.2 That's the
> main thing I need is
> to be able to bind a file.
Most likely because Robert wanted to get some more
cash.
People didn't give a rat's ass about the 300-statement
limit, they could download Euphoria, code a program,
bind it, and ship it, and that was enough for them.
So they didn't buy the complete edition.
But I must admit that the complete edition rocks ass.
No limits, no nags, nothing.
You get prompted by bindw.bat to supply a windows icon
file, wich is pretty cool.
2.0 could bind Windows programs, but without an icon.
This means you'll never sell a Windows program bound
with 2.0, as without an icon it just looks like shit.
Mike The spike
