1. Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
As the standard library increases in size, testing and documentation, I wonder
if the first release of Euphoria with the new library should be 4.0 instead of
3.2? It seems quite a change that would warrant a 4.0 release. It would also be a
major change that if there are incompatibilities we could/should state that 4.0
has many new methods, of which could conflict with existing code.
Changes with in a major version should do their absolute best to not cause
language incompatibilities, but with major releases such incompatibilities may be
inevitable?
I know it seems not to long ago the 3.1 branch was just released but what do you
think?
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
2. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> As the standard library increases in size, testing and documentation, I wonder
> if the first release of Euphoria with the new library should be 4.0 instead
> of 3.2? It seems quite a change that would warrant a 4.0 release. It would
> also
> be a major change that if there are incompatibilities we could/should state
> that 4.0 has many new methods, of which could conflict with existing code.
>
> Changes with in a major version should do their absolute best to not cause
> language
> incompatibilities, but with major releases such incompatibilities may be
> inevitable?
>
> I know it seems not to long ago the 3.1 branch was just released but what do
> you think?
Regarding 3.2 or 4.0, i agree with 4.0. And also: DROP DOS support! (copy-pasted
from IRC)
It is troublesome to implement all 3 platforms for new coming functions
such as implementing unicode functions and file operations.
3. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
yuku wrote:
> Regarding 3.2 or 4.0, i agree with 4.0. And also: DROP DOS support!
> (copy-pasted
> from IRC)
> It is troublesome to implement all 3 platforms for new coming functions
> such as implementing unicode functions and file operations.
I agree with using 4.0. I think these are major improvements and deserve
their own whole number. :D
Also, unless DOS functionality can be maintained in a pluggable library or
something, I wouldn't abandon it in the interpreter just yet. Isn't DOS still
being used somewhere in the world? Every version of Windows emulates DOS,
also, including going back to 3.1 (right?).
Maybe in the next interpreter, we can build in code that sends info about
the OS to a server each time a Euphoria program is run.
That's a joke, people. :P
4. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
- Posted by Marco Achury <achury at can?v.n?t>
Apr 22, 2008
-
Last edited Apr 23, 2008
I disagree to drop out DOS. Reasons:
- Remains few DOS languages on active development. And allmost all are BASIC
variants. I'm sure Euphoria is the best interpreter available for this OS
Today.
- DOS is stable, and is the simpler platform. I think there is not big
complication in to maintain the code.
- A DOS emulator is included on allmost any new Linux distro.
- FreeDOS continues in active development (well, slow, but continues active),
in the past I commented will be good to have again an DOS installer.
- Believe it or not. In the world remains a lot of DOS based software, mainly
for industrial control and administrative software.
- With the Rob's new DOS-Rescue library, the old graphics program may be easily
ported to Windows.
- EX.EXE + standar libraries + ED.ex can fit on a boot floppy. You even write
quick emergency tools on the fly (remember FreeDOS supports FAT32 and have plans
for limited NTFS support). You can't put Watcom or DJGPP on a floppy!!!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Marco A. Achury
Caracas, Venezuela
5. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
- Posted by Kat <KAT12 at co?s?hs.net>
Apr 22, 2008
-
Last edited Apr 23, 2008
yuku wrote:
>
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> >
> > As the standard library increases in size, testing and documentation, I
> > wonder
> > if the first release of Euphoria with the new library should be 4.0 instead
> > of 3.2? It seems quite a change that would warrant a 4.0 release. It would
> > also
> > be a major change that if there are incompatibilities we could/should state
> > that 4.0 has many new methods, of which could conflict with existing code.
> >
> > Changes with in a major version should do their absolute best to not cause
> > language
> > incompatibilities, but with major releases such incompatibilities may be
> > inevitable?
> >
> > I know it seems not to long ago the 3.1 branch was just released but what do
> > you think?
>
> Regarding 3.2 or 4.0, i agree with 4.0. And also: DROP DOS support!
Keep DOS support.
Kat
6. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
No opinion about version and I don't care about DOS support, as far as I'm
concern you can drop it.
Jacques Deschênes
7. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Absolutely 4.0. I think the winning issue is that if anything is going to
break, the major version should increment. If at the end of the day, nothing
breaks, then 3.x.
My $.02
Mike
8. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
jacques deschênes wrote:
>
>
> No opinion about version and I don't care about DOS support, as far as I'm
> concern
> you can drop it.
>
>
> Jacques Deschênes
I agree... but while your at it, drop Windows too! 
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good, 
9. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> yuku wrote:
> > Regarding 3.2 or 4.0, i agree with 4.0. And also: DROP DOS support!
> > (copy-pasted
> > from IRC)
> > It is troublesome to implement all 3 platforms for new coming functions
> > such as implementing unicode functions and file operations.
>
> I agree with using 4.0. I think these are major improvements and deserve
> their own whole number. :D
>
> Also, unless DOS functionality can be maintained in a pluggable library or
> something, I wouldn't abandon it in the interpreter just yet. Isn't DOS still
> being used somewhere in the world? Every version of Windows emulates DOS,
> also, including going back to 3.1 (right?).
>
> Maybe in the next interpreter, we can build in code that sends info about
> the OS to a server each time a Euphoria program is run.
>
> That's a joke, people. :P
I have never seen the DOS specific routines mentioned on this forum for years,
except to suggest getting rid of them. It would make sense for 4.0 to make that
leap into 21st century.
On the other end, leaving DOS support as it is doesn't cost much. What we should
do at least is to declare that any new feature in Eu is not required to work
under DOS, as current support is just lightweight legacy.
Has anyone considered porting Edita to Linux? That would enable us to remove the
archaic ed.ex.
CChris
10. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
CChris wrote:
> Has anyone considered porting Edita to Linux? That would enable us to remove
> the archaic ed.ex.
Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
11. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered porting Edita to Linux? That would enable us to remove
> > the archaic ed.ex.
>
> Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
I use eFTE, it works just as good in X windows, Windows, Linux, DOS and over SSH
sessions to servers I maintain. So, text mode is certainly beneficial. Now, ed? I
never got the ed bug, I'll stick w/eFTE.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
12. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered porting Edita to Linux? That would enable us to remove
> > the archaic ed.ex.
>
> Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
Part of Edita is not open source, if I recall correctly. This
was an issue when porting Edita to Linux was discussed a while
back.
Robert Craig has said that ed.ex was origninally intended
as a simple demo. It is a wonderful console editor
which can easily be modified to suit one's needs.
I have found ed.ex on the console much easier to read than
any GUI editors. Lately, I have considered buying one of the
tiny new linux palmtops, such as the Ausus eepc. Ed.ex would be
ideal for quick little edit jobs on such a small screen.
Keep ed.ex. Drop the bloat.
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good,
13. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
>
> I have found ed.ex on the console much easier to read than
> any GUI editors. Lately, I have considered buying one of the
> tiny new linux palmtops, such as the Ausus eepc. Ed.ex would be
> ideal for quick little edit jobs on such a small screen.
>
> Keep ed.ex. Drop the bloat.
The thing I don't like about ed.ex is it's lousy menu system
> Ken Rhodes
> Folding at Home: <a
> href="http://folding.stanford.edu/">http://folding.stanford.edu/</a>
> 100% MicroSoft Free
> SuSE Linux 10.0
> No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
> Life is Good,
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
14. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered porting Edita to Linux? That would enable us to remove
> > the archaic ed.ex.
>
> Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
But they are real programmers, so they use C/ASM anyway and don't eat quiche
CChris
15. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> The thing I don't like about ed.ex is it's lousy menu system
>
> Bernie
To each his own. I have the dubious merit of being the least proficient
euphoria programmer on this list. It has been easy and fun for me to
modify and extend ed.ex's menu system, add one-key context sensitive help,
add hot-keys, etc.
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good,
16. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> I use eFTE, it works just as good in X windows, Windows, Linux, DOS and over
> SSH sessions to servers I maintain. So, text mode is certainly beneficial.
> Now,
> ed? I never got the ed bug, I'll stick w/eFTE.
>
> Jeremy Cowgar
Why not port eFTE to Euphoria?
Basically, Robert Craig's claim is that
it would take much more [C] code to provide the same functionality as ed.ex.
Which language is eFTE coded in? If not Euphoria, then why not?
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good,
17. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
>
>
> Why not port eFTE to Euphoria?
>
> Basically, Robert Craig's claim is that
> it would take much more [C] code to provide the same functionality as ed.ex.
>
> Which language is eFTE coded in? If not Euphoria, then why not?
>
That would create a very nice editor (IMHO), however, it's 59k lines of C/C++.
Not a trivial task.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
18. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> >
> > The thing I don't like about ed.ex is it's lousy menu system
> >
> > Bernie
>
> To each his own. I have the dubious merit of being the least proficient
> euphoria programmer on this list. It has been easy and fun for me to
> modify and extend ed.ex's menu system, add one-key context sensitive help,
> add hot-keys, etc.
>
Ken:
Why don't you place improved version in the archive.
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
19. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why not port eFTE to Euphoria?
> >
> > Basically, Robert Craig's claim is that
> > it would take much more [C] code to provide the same functionality as ed.ex.
> >
> > Which language is eFTE coded in? If not Euphoria, then why not?
> >
>
> That would create a very nice editor (IMHO), however, it's 59k lines of C/C++.
> Not a trivial task.
>
> --
> Jeremy Cowgar
> <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
Hi
Look at David Cuny's (and Irv Mullins') ee in the archives.
Chris
20. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
CChris wrote:
>
> c.k.lester wrote:
> >
> > Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
>
> But they are real programmers, so they use C/ASM anyway and don't eat
> quiche
Of course, you mean FORTRAN.
Matt
21. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
This subject has gotten quite off track. It was initially asking should the next
Euphoria version be 3.2 or 4.0 but then we got off onto keeping or dropping DOS
support and now which editor to use.
Can we stick with the subject? If we wish to discuss editors or DOS, a new
thread can be created. -- Sorry, don't mean to sound rude, but I think the 3.2 or
4.0 question needs some attention.
So far it seems most people are in favor with 4.0.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
22. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Ken:
>
> Why don't you place improved version in the archive.
>
> Bernie
>
I posted my "extended" versions of ed.ex on the user's
contribution page up until Rob dropped ncurses (v. 3.0)
which broke some code. At that time I asked Rob to remove it from the
archive. My impression was that no one was interested in
using it, or any console editor for that matter, and therefore
didn't have much motivation for maintaining it.
If you are anyone is interested in the old code, I'll be glad to
email it to you, or post it back to the archive. Actually,
Rob offered to keep it in the archives with a notation that
v. 3.0 would be required to run it. I told him just to drop it
since no one had expressed any interest in it
You mentioned that you didn't like ed.ex's menu's. Look at
the code. Change what you don't like to something that you
do like. Want more menu's? Add'em. Likewise with hot-keys
and auto-complete. I never did any real programming in the sense
that most of you guys do. I just fiddled with Rob's code.
I guess I got really lazy because I don't think it would
really take that much to switch from the pre-v.30 ncurses code to
the ascii positioning code that ed.ex now uses.
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good,
23. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
ChrisBurch2 wrote:
>
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> >
> > Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why not port eFTE to Euphoria?
> > >
> > > Basically, Robert Craig's claim is that
> > > it would take much more [C] code to provide the same functionality as
> > > ed.ex.
> > >
> > > Which language is eFTE coded in? If not Euphoria, then why not?
> > >
> >
> > That would create a very nice editor (IMHO), however, it's 59k lines of
> > C/C++.
> > Not a trivial task.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Cowgar
> > <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
>
> Hi
>
> Look at David Cuny's (and Irv Mullins') ee in the archives.
>
> Chris
If you all are looking for an editor for Euphoria programming for GNU/Linux,
Kate is very good. It has syntax coloring for Euphoria (thanks to Irv Mullins).
It has sessions. You can quickly switch to another session (=project). It has a
built-in terminal that you can run programs in. It has a filesystem browser and a
list of documents. The list of documents changes when you change to a different
session. It has as many windows as you want. You can configure it every
imaginable way. It has syntax coloring for dozens of languages.
Kate is a KDE thing but it works on Gnome. But if you are running Gnome and you
want Kate to work fully and without bugs, you may need to install some KDE stuff.
For example the built-in terminal (very useful) won't work unless you install the
KDE version of terminal.
24. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
> >
> > c.k.lester wrote:
> > >
> > > Not everybody uses a GUI. I would say most hackers probably do not.
> >
> > But they are real programmers, so they use C/ASM anyway and don't eat
> > quiche
>
> Of course, you mean FORTRAN.
>
> Matt
Of course. But are there still many fortran programmers around nowadays? And do
they any hacking in fortran? This text is 30 year old I think.
CChris
25. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
CChris wrote:
>
>
> Of course. But are there still many fortran programmers around nowadays? And
> do they any hacking in fortran? This text is 30 year old I think.
>
Chris:
Be careful what you say about Fortran.
Rob's a Fortran programmer. :)
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
26. Re: Next version number 3.2 or 4.0?
CChris wrote:
>
> Of course. But are there still many fortran programmers around nowadays? And
> do they any hacking in fortran? This text is 30 year old I think.
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#The_legacy_of_FORTRAN
Matt
