1. how's the Linux version getting along?
Rob Craig wrote:
>Euphoria is not hard to port, being 99% C, 1% assembly.
>I hope to do Euphoria for Linux and maybe the PowerMac,
>but at the moment I'm concentrating on WIN32 and DOS.
Given the large numbers of DOS and WIN systems across the world, I can
understand that versions of Euphoria for those platforms may gain large
numbers of users. On the other hand, this portability could be one of
Euphoria's major strengths. (One of Java's major attractions is that
writing Java programs is, in effect, multi-platform development.)
If I may gently encourage Rapid Deployment Software with a suggestion:
Euphoria 1.5a for DOS already is a beautiful language. If there is a
Linux version, then suddenly Euphoria will become interesting for those
(like me) who want to write portable programs (an additional attraction
is: then we won't need 'Bill' for anything any more!).
And how would a version for OS/2 be? (I generally use OS/2.) That should
be a cinch to make, considering that Euphoria was made using the Watcom
compiler.
Regards,
RZ
2. Re: how's the Linux version getting along?
I myself eagerly await the Mac version. 
--
Cameron Kaiser
http://www.sserv.com/
spectre at sserv.com
--
3. Re: how's the Linux version getting along?
Robert J. Zydenbos writes:
> If I may gently encourage Rapid Deployment Software with a suggestion:
> Euphoria 1.5a for DOS already is a beautiful language. If there is a
> Linux version, then suddenly Euphoria will become interesting for those
> (like me) who want to write portable programs (an additional attraction
> is: then we won't need 'Bill' for anything any more!).
Yes I'd like to do a Linux version. But I have to get WIN32 out first.
> And how would a version for OS/2 be? (I generally use OS/2.) That should
> be a cinch to make, considering that Euphoria was made using the Watcom
> compiler.
Yes WATCOM supports OS/2, so it would be fairly easy to do an OS/2
version (someday!).
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
