1. What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
I'm not an experienced programmer and simply dabbled into programming over
the years. I've used scripting languages like AutoHotKey, AutoIT, WinBatch
(Nasty licensing like Euphoria), etc...
My goal is to find the easiest, but most powerful tool that can accomplish
what I need to get done. In looking at many, many, many programming
languages.
I've decided to give Euphoria a try (though my patience with it will
be very
thin), for perhaps a little while. Actually, I had thought about Euphoria
once before, but decided to "pass it over". I will first go into why,
I allowed myself to be "seduced" by the language and then, from a
newbie perspective, why Euphoria just does NOT catch on.
Note- Parts of this may seem very harsh, but keep in mind I'm a Euphoria
Newbie and paying customer of Euphoria. I just want to show what Euphoria
looks like to somebody who is new, but has experience with computers
and has
seen other computer languages (though script languages). I like Euphoria
and want to see it grow as a computer language, but it has some severe
problems, thus this post.
Euphoria "seduction"
Euphoria's "seductive" power is based on its nice syntax and speed as for
an interpreted language. It can also be compiled, by a C/C++ compiler or
spew out C source code, which is a plus too. Many people don't like C/C++
because is syntax is simply horrible and getting work done is more
difficult
and takes longer than it intuitively seems it should to many people. The
alternatives are Visual Basic, various flavors of Basic, Object Pascal,
etc... Visual Basic/.NET, VBScript, etc.. are twisted tools of seduction
by the "evil empire" Micro$oft. They at first appear to be helpful
and add
value, but it later becomes apparent that its as equally as nasty as
dealing
with C/C++, just different, meanwhile you have given Micro$oft a
sh*tload of
your money and your pocket hurts. Delphi could have been the "champion of
the people" but they were corrupted by the Micro$oft. The head
programmers
of Delphi were "BOUGHT OFF" by Micro$oft and Micro$oft got it hands
on the
parent's company stock. There is a major freeware and open-source effort
to clone Delphi and Object Pascal, aka Lazarus
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/ . They are just beginning and have
made
great strides....and they still have some development time to go, but make
no mistake about it Freeware Object Pascal is here to stay and will get
better.
Why is so-called "Superior" Euphoria not blowing away the competition???
In light of the competition, the Euphoria programming language, which has
been around for OVER A DECADE should be "racking up", but its NOT.
Say Euphoria, the programming language to COMPUTER people, and they
will be
like "What??? Is that a drug or something???" The reasons that it is not
"well known" or even "somewhat known" is because something fundamentally
and basically is WRONG. Euphoria syntax, in my opinion is even better to
look at than Object Pascal (but its a close call). I feel Euphoria
has the
edge in this category and this is not the problem. So, minus the
"seductive
beauty" of the Euphoria language, the problems appear to be:
1. Lack of help fostering positive "programming relationships" with
newbies.
2. RDS's licensing scheme and "choke hold" on Euphoria (actually
choking to
death is more like it).
3. Lack of development speed and innovation.
I will now elaborate a bit on each one:
1. Lack of help fostering positive "programming relationships" with
newbies.
When, as a newbie, you encounter the RapidEuphoria website it looks
like a
programming "DUMPING GROUND" that new users are suppose to figure out
"what
is what" without any help and an old communist propaganda about the
"superiority of Euphoria". Basically, its NASTY.
As a newbie, what you would like to see is a COMPLETE PACKAGE that the new
user can start to use in order to be PRODUCTIVE and QUICKLY begin to
start programming. Euphoria does NOT provide that, but instead provides
CONFUSION. There is of course a reason for this and I will elaborate
on that
in part later.
Furthermore, the jumbled mess of tools that new users are confronted
with,
do not have a clear concept of design for RAD or "Ease of Use". Why?
They are freeware tools, some VERY GOOD by the way, designed by Euphoria
USERS to try to USE the Euphoria programming language. Frankly this is
"ass backwards" for a PAYWARE program. One would think that a company
selling
a product would be the leaders in putting together a "coherent"
package for
new users to start programming and then the FREEWARE would be to
supplement.
Hell even the FREEWARE Object Pascal and C/++ IDE/RAD/Compiler projects,
which there are many now, try to offer an "all in one" package to get
users
started. Euphoria??? Nope, just a jumbled mess and lots of propaganda.
2. RDS's licensing scheme and "choke hold" on Euphoria
(actually slowly choking to death is more like it).
Now we start to get to the meat of the problem:
. If RDS had charged for commercial or business use of their product and
allowed it to be free for personal use than use of it would have arguably
greatly increased.
. RDS could make money "around" Euphoria, instead of directly off the
source
code, binder,etc... There could be Euphoria books, RDS professional
support
services that answer questions, charging people and businesses for custom
solutions, etc.. So what about that advertisement for
RDS Custom Programming??. RDS appears to offer this, but is doing so on
a SMALL scale, because its trying to bank off the source code, binder,
and translator. By relying on sales of the binder and translator or
inhibiting the source code, RDS is instead CHOKING INNOVATION. Thus RDS's
other business in SUPPORT and Custom Programming can NOT grow. NUMBERS
COUNT. If NOT al ot of people are using Euphoria than they have no need
for support. If lots of companies and businesses ARE using Euphoria than
they need the support. RDS is obviously afraid to let go and the obvious
reason is short sightedness about how to make money.
3. Lack of development speed and innovation.
Once you pay for Euphoria, RDS had no further need to develop their
product. Their "seduction and/or propaganda" worked, they have your
money, and they will get around to further development whenever they
feel an urge to do so. If thats 6 months, 1 year, 3 years.... So
what??? What are you going to do about it? Use the product or leave.
Actually, if you paid, they got your money, so who cares if you go.
Even a newbie can tell that the vast majority of development and
innovation
has come via the FREEWARE programs and ideas of Euphoria users.
In fact it looks like RDS is taking advantage of the freeware contributors
and using it to sell Euphoria itself. That looks plain ugly.
The overall development of Euphoria itself as a program has been VERY
SLOW.
What this allows is for RDS to "take ideas from users" whenever one seems
profitable and update their product with it. The IDE that I use and
several tools were NOT developed by RDS, but were "gifts of love" by
Euphoria users (thanks, to all you freeware contributors by the way).
What can be done???
I very much think that RDS should let the Euphoria language grow and allow
it to be open-source. Its virutally open-source now, since to use the
language requires numerous freeware tools. By RDS letting go of the
binder,
translator, or source code... or at least binder would be a start....
they
will allow development on Euphoria to open up and allow it to COMPETE with
other computer languages. In fact Euphoria could make letting go of the
binder and making it open source as a promotional tool to encourage new
users and development.
Euphoria, despite the initial beauty of its syntax and language, is
falling
behind and starting to grow "old and ugly". To compete with the ever
widening list of rival scripting languages which are becoming more
powerful
and "NEWBIE friendly" like AutoIT, AutoHotKey, Python, etc... and to
compete
with freeware versions of powerful computer languages and compilers like
Object Pascal, C/C++, HLA (High Level Assembly... Powerful Free New
Computer
Language) than RDS is going to simply have to change its strategy, let
go of
the choke hold, and let Euphoria grow faster. RDS can make money through
support and custom services, but to do that Euphoria has to INCREASE its
numbers. That means letting tools go and letting them be developed by the
open-source community. Euphoria can compete with other computer
languages,
but it has to be allowed to compete.
Please Note:
While there are some negative things said in the above post, the point is
that myself and obviously many Euphoria users care a lot to take the time
to voice these concerns and issues. The next step is on RDS and I hope
this does not fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, if it is falling on deaf
ears than I will leave Euphoria too and go on to some other programming
language, but I just think that would be a shame.
2. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
Euphoria is NOT a scriping langauge.
There are many programmers on this list that have many more
years of experience in many fields that are more than happy to
help you.
< 2. RDS's licensing scheme and "choke hold" on Euphoria (actually
< choking to death is more like it).
RDS has NO "choke hold" on any user.
You can use Euphoria for any program that you wish to write
either Commercial or Hobby. The licensing has no restriction
on what program you write as long as it's not harmfull.
If you don't want the public message to appear in your program
then that is the only time you need to purchase the offical
addition.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew
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: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW wrote:
> Euphoria "seduction"
>
> Euphoria's "seductive" power is based on its nice syntax and speed as for
> an interpreted language. It can also be compiled, by a C/C++ compiler or
> spew out C source code, which is a plus too. Many people don't like C/C++
> because is syntax is simply horrible and getting work done is more
> difficult
> and takes longer than it intuitively seems it should to many people. The
> alternatives are Visual Basic, various flavors of Basic, Object Pascal,
> etc... Visual Basic/.NET, VBScript, etc.. are twisted tools of seduction
> by the "evil empire" Micro$oft. They at first appear to be helpful
> and add
> value, but it later becomes apparent that its as equally as nasty as
> dealing
> with C/C++, just different, meanwhile you have given Micro$oft a
> sh*tload of
> your money and your pocket hurts. Delphi could have been the "champion of
> the people" but they were corrupted by the Micro$oft. The head
> programmers
> of Delphi were "BOUGHT OFF" by Micro$oft and Micro$oft got it hands
> on the
> parent's company stock. There is a major freeware and open-source effort
> to clone Delphi and Object Pascal, aka Lazarus
> <a
> href="http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/">http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/</a>
> . They are just beginning and have
> made
> great strides....and they still have some development time to go, but make
> no mistake about it Freeware Object Pascal is here to stay and will get
> better.
Lazarus is good but its still a ways from being completely usable on
the level of Delphi. Plus Delphi just released the newest version,
Delphi 2005, which is simply the best tool for programming Windows
ever designed with support for both .NET and COM apps plus the best
IDE one can find anywhere. Yes, Delhpi 8 did suck but Borland really
fixed themselves up with this release as well as createing Kylix
(Delphi for Linux).
> Why is so-called "Superior" Euphoria not blowing away the competition???
> ...
> So, minus the
> "seductive
> beauty" of the Euphoria language, the problems appear to be:
>
> 1. Lack of help fostering positive "programming relationships" with
> newbies.
>
> When, as a newbie, you encounter the RapidEuphoria website it looks
> like a
> programming "DUMPING GROUND" that new users are suppose to figure out
> "what
> is what" without any help and an old communist propaganda about the
> "superiority of Euphoria". Basically, its NASTY.
>
> As a newbie, what you would like to see is a COMPLETE PACKAGE that the new
> user can start to use in order to be PRODUCTIVE and QUICKLY begin to
> start programming. Euphoria does NOT provide that, but instead provides
> CONFUSION. There is of course a reason for this and I will elaborate
> on that
> in part later.
>
> Furthermore, the jumbled mess of tools that new users are confronted
> with,
> do not have a clear concept of design for RAD or "Ease of Use". Why?
> They are freeware tools, some VERY GOOD by the way, designed by Euphoria
> USERS to try to USE the Euphoria programming language. Frankly this is
> "ass backwards" for a PAYWARE program. One would think that a company
> selling
> a product would be the leaders in putting together a "coherent"
> package for
> new users to start programming and then the FREEWARE would be to
> supplement.
>
> Hell even the FREEWARE Object Pascal and C/++ IDE/RAD/Compiler projects,
> which there are many now, try to offer an "all in one" package to get
> users
> started. Euphoria??? Nope, just a jumbled mess and lots of propaganda.
>
This is true to a degree. But the reason seems to be there's many
different tools out there and many different libraries that they use.
For example, when doing Windows programming you can use Win32lib,
EuWin, wxWindows, etc. and each has their own RAD IDE. I think it'd be
unfair for them to choose to distribute Euphoria with one of them
since that'd show support for one library over another since some
people prefer to use EuWin over Win32lib, Win32lib is more powerful
but EuWin is a lot easier to use. I do think the archive could be
cleaned up a bit though becasue it is hard to find out what's "good"
and what's not. Also, GCC is big but it doesn't come with a RAD IDE
and it's the main compiler for many operating systems.
> 2. RDS's licensing scheme and "choke hold" on Euphoria
> (actually slowly choking to death is more like it).
>
> Now we start to get to the meat of the problem:
>
> . If RDS had charged for commercial or business use of their product and
> allowed it to be free for personal use than use of it would have arguably
> greatly increased.
>
> . RDS could make money "around" Euphoria, instead of directly off the
> source
> code, binder,etc... There could be Euphoria books, RDS professional
> support
> services that answer questions, charging people and businesses for custom
> solutions, etc.. So what about that advertisement for
> RDS Custom Programming??. RDS appears to offer this, but is doing so on
> a SMALL scale, because its trying to bank off the source code, binder,
> and translator. By relying on sales of the binder and translator or
> inhibiting the source code, RDS is instead CHOKING INNOVATION. Thus RDS's
> other business in SUPPORT and Custom Programming can NOT grow. NUMBERS
> COUNT. If NOT al ot of people are using Euphoria than they have no need
> for support. If lots of companies and businesses ARE using Euphoria than
> they need the support. RDS is obviously afraid to let go and the obvious
> reason is short sightedness about how to make money.
This I agree completely with almost everything you said. If the
OpenEuphoria project had something usable I'd be fine but one of the
reasons Perl and Python are so popular is because their open source
and can be adapted to anything. I'd love to see an OpenBSD or an
Apache server module to run Euphoria in a webpage (like PHP) but we
can't until we have an open source Euphoria interpreter becasue not
everyone has the time to make ports and then once you do if a client
needs to use one of these special interpreters you've made from the
source you need to have them buy a code of the source too due to the
lisence. I also think there does need to be some commercial Euphoria
books (I'm actually working on one know) and some better OFFICIAL
tutorials. Now I do realize that programmers need to eat and that many
programmers don't like to lose control of their projects so that
selling this as closed source is the only option available to them but
ALL the popular languages are open source (with the exception of
Microsoft Visual C++ and Delphi). Unless Euphoria becomes completely
open-source it won't catch on. However, I think only the interpreter
should be open-source (since that's the biggest and most usable part)
and that they should charge for the binder/shrouder and the translator.
> 3. Lack of development speed and innovation.
>
> Once you pay for Euphoria, RDS had no further need to develop their
> product. Their "seduction and/or propaganda" worked, they have your
> money, and they will get around to further development whenever they
> feel an urge to do so. If thats 6 months, 1 year, 3 years.... So
> what??? What are you going to do about it? Use the product or leave.
> Actually, if you paid, they got your money, so who cares if you go.
> Even a newbie can tell that the vast majority of development and
> innovation
> has come via the FREEWARE programs and ideas of Euphoria users.
>
> In fact it looks like RDS is taking advantage of the freeware contributors
> and using it to sell Euphoria itself. That looks plain ugly.
>
> The overall development of Euphoria itself as a program has been VERY
> SLOW.
> What this allows is for RDS to "take ideas from users" whenever one seems
> profitable and update their product with it. The IDE that I use and
> several tools were NOT developed by RDS, but were "gifts of love" by
> Euphoria users (thanks, to all you freeware contributors by the way).
> What can be done???
>
> I very much think that RDS should let the Euphoria language grow and allow
> it to be open-source. Its virutally open-source now, since to use the
> language requires numerous freeware tools. By RDS letting go of the
> binder,
> translator, or source code... or at least binder would be a start....
> they
> will allow development on Euphoria to open up and allow it to COMPETE with
> other computer languages. In fact Euphoria could make letting go of the
> binder and making it open source as a promotional tool to encourage new
> users and development.
> Euphoria, despite the initial beauty of its syntax and language, is
> falling
> behind and starting to grow "old and ugly". To compete with the ever
> widening list of rival scripting languages which are becoming more
> powerful
> and "NEWBIE friendly" like AutoIT, AutoHotKey, Python, etc... and to
> compete
> with freeware versions of powerful computer languages and compilers like
> Object Pascal, C/C++, HLA (High Level Assembly... Powerful Free New
> Computer
> Language) than RDS is going to simply have to change its strategy, let
> go of
> the choke hold, and let Euphoria grow faster. RDS can make money through
> support and custom services, but to do that Euphoria has to INCREASE its
> numbers. That means letting tools go and letting them be developed by the
> open-source community. Euphoria can compete with other computer
> languages,
> but it has to be allowed to compete.
I think this is more to do with lack of advertising for Euphoria than
anything. If more people knew about it (as well as being open-source)
it'd be much more popular. Also, we need some good
commercial/professional applications to show the its viable in a
commercial market that'd cause more people to look it over.
4. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
- Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agriculture.gouv.fr>
Jan 22, 2005
-
Last edited Jan 23, 2005
Just a note about gcc: it does have an IDE called rhide. Not easy to find,
but I could grab a copy at djgpp's site.
CChris
5. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
D. Newhall wrote:
> This I agree completely with almost everything you said. If the
> OpenEuphoria project had something usable I'd be fine but one of the
> reasons Perl and Python are so popular is because their open source
> and can be adapted to anything.
Euphoria is a niche language, much like Lua or Rebol. It's never going to go
mainstream in the way that Basic and Pascal have, and that's not necessarily
a bad thing.
I had started working on Yet Another Euphoria Clone earlier this year, until I
came to my senses. I don't really think there's any demand for an Open Source
version of Euphoria.
Who is clamoring for an Open Source version? Euphoria is virtually free, and I
doubt there are many people who aren't using it on some principle about the
licence.
People who are unhappy with Euphoria would generally like to have some aspect
of the language change. For OpenEuphoria to serve them, it would make
OpenEuphoria (or at least, programs they write that take advantage of those
features) incompatible with RDS Euphoria. How long with that project last?
If you're going to go through that much effort, you may as well go the entire
distance, and write your own language from scratch. That's much more
satisfying.
-- David Cuny
6. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
David wrote:
>
> Euphoria is a niche language, much like Lua or Rebol. It's never going to go
> mainstream in the way that Basic and Pascal have, and that's not necessarily
> a bad thing.
>
> I had started working on Yet Another Euphoria Clone earlier this year, until I
>
> came to my senses. I don't really think there's any demand for an Open Source
> version of Euphoria.
>
> Who is clamoring for an Open Source version? Euphoria is virtually free, and I
>
> doubt there are many people who aren't using it on some principle about the
> licence.
The reason I want Euphoria to be open-source is so we I can use it in more
places. I don't want to have to shell out $70 just so I can use it on our OpneBSD
servers at work. Also, I would absolutely love to have an Apache module for
Euphoria the way that Apache has modules for Perl, Python, and PHP. I don't have
the time to work on an interpreter from scratch nor do I want to spend $70 bucks
for source code I might not understand that well or have the time to modify it.
> People who are unhappy with Euphoria would generally like to have some aspect
> of the language change. For OpenEuphoria to serve them, it would make
> OpenEuphoria (or at least, programs they write that take advantage of those
> features) incompatible with RDS Euphoria. How long with that project last?
>
> If you're going to go through that much effort, you may as well go the entire
> distance, and write your own language from scratch. That's much more
> satisfying.
I disagree with that argument. PHP is the most popular server-side scripting
language in use today. It began as a modified version of the Perl source. In
fact, my attempts at writing a Euphoria interpreter used the Perl source code
extensively. That's the beauty of open source, you don't need to reinvent the
wheel each time. Also, say that OpenEuphoria wouldn't be compatable? If it was
open-source then someone could just modify it to make it compatable.
Another argument for open-sourcing Euphoria is that it'll cause the language to
be optimized better since more people could look at the code and analyze it.
Also, since you could see the code you could see what the more efficient
operations are we could optimize better (ex. length(str)=0 vs. equal(str,"")).
7. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
- Posted by David <dcuny at lanset.com>
Jan 23, 2005
-
Last edited Jan 24, 2005
D. Newhall wrote:
> The reason I want Euphoria to be open-source is so we I can use it in more
> places. I don't want to have to shell out $70 just so I can use it on our
> OpneBSD servers at work.
So your basic argument is that you want it for free?
> Also, I would absolutely love to have an Apache
> module for Euphoria the way that Apache has modules for Perl, Python, and
> PHP.
Why would using Euphoria for be better than any of the options you listed?
What benefit does Euphoria offer for web page development?
> I don't have the time to work on an interpreter from scratch nor do I
> want to spend $70 bucks for source code I might not understand that well or
> have the time to modify it.
So again, you want it free.
> I disagree with that argument. PHP is the most popular server-side
> scripting language in use today. It began as a modified version of the Perl
> source.
And? There are many, many excellent programming languages that never catch on.
Many are Open Source.
> In fact, my attempts at writing a Euphoria interpreter used the
> Perl source code extensively. That's the beauty of open source, you don't
> need to reinvent the wheel each time.
Again, I don't follow you here. There are at least three versions of an "Open
Source" version of Euphoria that have been written so far. But it sounds like
you chose to "reinvent the wheel" again.
> Also, say that OpenEuphoria wouldn't be compatable?
Yes, that's pretty much the point of it. Unless your motivation is you just
don't want to pay for Euphoria.
> If it was open-source then someone could just modify it to
> make it compatable.
But since RDS already has a 100% compatible version, why would someone want to
waste their time doing that?
> Another argument for open-sourcing Euphoria is that it'll cause the
> language to be optimized better since more people could look at the code
> and analyze it. Also, since you could see the code you could see what the
> more efficient operations are we could optimize better (ex. length(str)=0
> vs. equal(str,"")).
The "mongolian hoards" argument, as if there were zillions of Open Source
coders just waiting to get their hands on it.
Robert's already done a bang-up job optimizing Euphoria (it was his thesis
project, after all). That's one of the reasons that Euphoria is compelling in
the first place.
I suspect that an Open Source version would end up going much slower, as new
features are added by less skilled coders.
-- David Cuny
8. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
David wrote:
> So your basic argument is that you want it for free?
That would help but actually my biggest problem is that if you make a port using
the Euphoria source code then anyone else who wants to use the new interpreter
must also buy the source. So if you were to make an EM64T, for example, then
since it runs on an already supported platform they'd have to pay for the source
code which would discourage possible users.
> Why would using Euphoria for be better than any of the options you listed?
The Euphoria interpreter is faster than Perl or Python plus many people prefer
"traditional" syntax over the curly-brace style so prevalent today.
> What benefit does Euphoria offer for web page development?
Data manipulation is just as easy in Euphoria as it is in Perl or Python but
Euphoria's syntax is cleaner and easier to read and debug.
> And? There are many, many excellent programming languages that never catch on.
>
> Many are Open Source.
How many closed source languages catch on that don't have a massive corporation
backing them? Name one. Even then if a closed source language catches on an
open-source counterpart is developed (Delphi has Lazarus, .NET has Mono, etc.).
> Again, I don't follow you here. There are at least three versions of an "Open
> Source" version of Euphoria that have been written so far. But it sounds like
> you chose to "reinvent the wheel" again.
My version was an attempt at writting an Apache module that could run Euphoria
for dynamic webpage creation so the existing open-source interpreters didn't
offer that much code that was usable in this context.
> But since RDS already has a 100% compatible version, why would someone want to
>
> waste their time doing that?
Yes, but what if RDS decides to charge for the new versions of the interpreter?
Having an open source interpreter would ensure that the language could survive
freely.
> The "mongolian hoards" argument, as if there were zillions of Open Source
> coders just waiting to get their hands on it.
If Euphoria was open-sourced then the community would definitely expand since
there are many people that refuse to work with so
> Robert's already done a bang-up job optimizing Euphoria (it was his thesis
> project, after all). That's one of the reasons that Euphoria is compelling in
> the first place.
Oh yes, Robert's done a fabulous job. I just think that the way its handled now
it's too restrictive to catch on.
> I suspect that an Open Source version would end up going much slower, as new
> features are added by less skilled coders.
Why only have a few guys work on a project in private when you can let anyone
contribute? It can't make it any worse if you started out with good programmers
to start with.
9. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW wrote:
>
> I'm not an experienced programmer and simply dabbled into programming over
> the years. I've used scripting languages like AutoHotKey, AutoIT, WinBatch
> (Nasty licensing like Euphoria), etc...
>
> My goal is to find the easiest, but most powerful tool that can accomplish
> what I need to get done.
>From not a profesional programer prospective. I started off with a
Timex Sinclair until I found out it didn't have enough memory do
anything. Then I got a Commador 64 in which I delved into machine
language and Basic. Then I moved to Atari 1200 learned Atari Basic.
On to a Mac SE w/Mac Basic. Finally a PC w/Liberty Basic that I found too
slow and then I found Euphoria. The answer to all my prayers, a
language
fast enough and could be written by stupid clutz like me.
> The
> alternatives are Visual Basic, various flavors of Basic, Object Pascal,
> etc... Visual Basic/.NET, VBScript, etc..
> There is a major freeware and open-source effort
> to clone Delphi and Object Pascal, aka Lazarus
> <a
> href="http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/">http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/
I am sure that there are other languages out there that are better.
But life is too short for me to download and learn them all.
So I am sticking with Euphoria.
Are you listening Rob?
Don Cole
Sf
10. What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
It may seem odd, but a lot of Euphoria "fans" want to see the language catch on,
but right now it can't.
More things to think about:
. You tell people that you learned about this great new programming language
called Euphoria, but they usually go "What???, Is that like Crack???".
. You then proceed to, wishfully, give them some programs that you created in
Euphoria or direct them to this website. But, you then often get, "So what's
different about using Euphoria in comparison to VBScript, Perl, Python, Object
Pascal, AutoIt, AutoHotKey, etc...??" Of course an Euphoria supporter says the
pretty and smart syntax. But then you mention its PAYWARE and then the other
guys are like... "Hey man, AutoIT, AutoHotKey, all kinds of version of Pascal,
Basic, Perl, Python, etc... is FREE. Free, dude, free!!!"
. Then you try to go technical with them about it and explain how much easier it
is to use Euphoria than say C/C++ or even Visual Basic, but that argument starts
to crack up real soon. Why?? One reas is the power of these newer scripting
languages. AutoIt, AutoHotKey, all kinds of automation/scripting languages,
etc... are EASY to learn. They can do AUTOMATION. You use a MACRO RECORDER and
it will record your keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc... Now you guys, might think
that is for babies, but for programming newbies that FREE automation/macro
recorder is very hard to be. Plus those macro recordings can be saved as
scripts. So the newbies to automation/scripting languages then can get deeper
and start modifying the scripts. AutoIT and KixTart, for example, can now call
DLLs, starting to do COM/OLE, etc... So there is a lot of power there, short of
making DLLs and a lot of the lower level stuff. AutoIT, KixTart, AutoHotKey can
also make GUIs/Windows. Then if you start talking web servers and web browser
guys will bring up VBScript, Jscript, PHP, Perl, et... They are FREE and EASIER
than doing C/C++ too. So its an uphill battle to convince them how technically
superior and easier Euphoria is when confronted with that. Euphoria "POWER" does
really start to "kick in" untill you start talking MAKING DLLs and going low
level. But, then there is Freeware Object Pascal and the new language HLA (High
Level Assembly) and these languages can duke it out with C/C++ any day. Now
don't get me wrong. Euphoria is a great "in the middle and general purpose
language", but it could do a LOT for itself if it starts to ADAPT itself to they
other areas. There is NO reason why Euphoria can't be used for Network Admin.
tasks, Automation/Macro Recorders, web scripting, etc... People will not help
ADAPT Euphoria for these kinds of tasks unless they have a reason to. Open
Euphoria or "SMARTER TARGETING" of placing Euphoria into these areas will allow
it to compete. It has to be mentioned that open source freeware is easily able
to adapt because many users will contribute. Take a look at AutoIT. It was an
offshoot of ScripIT and WinBatch. The source code was open, so people get adding
feature after feature to it. Now AutoIT came from a little automation script to
now being close to a full programming language in a very short period of time.
Anyway...
. You then try to get people to USE Euphoria, but they are like, "What the hell
am I going to do with it? I have to pay for the binder. If i use this, this,
and that... Its free. Get away from me with that Euphoria crap." Many people
don't even give Euphoria a chance.
I'm saying, do something about this. Give the BINDER away for FREE. AutoIT,
for example, is a compiled script. It uses the concept of "binding" with their
script to the AutoIT exe. something very similar to Euphoria. If the Binder were
free than people would TRY and USE Euphoria more. AutoIT's binder is FREE, so
more and more people do USE IT. THe keyword is USE. Free to USE ANYWHERE, will
beat restricted payware. Now with that typed... RDS and the Euphoria to C
TRANSLATOR... if they want speed than they can buy that. The key is that more
people will use Euphoria, perhaps get hooked and like it, and then buy OTHER
things from RDS. That works because RDS is adding VALUE to their product. Right
now, many people have "SEE" NO reason to use it. In fact, my mentioning it to
people to try and use, feels like I'm pushing drugs or something.
. Then I direct some people to Euphoria's website and another story unfolds.
They can't get Euphoria to INSTALL PROPERLY, they are CONFUSED by what to
install, they are CONFUSED by how the INCLUDES work (which is usually related to
install and enviroment setup issues, etc...). The Euphoria Setup is NASTY. I
show guys AutoIT, AutoHotKey, a freeware Pascal IDE, etc... and they all WORK and
INSTALL properly. Euphoria??? The guy is going into his control panel to play
with variables, etc... Then from there the Newbie is like well what to use with
this thing to start off??? There is some tips in the help file of course, but a
NEWBIE package would should serious company out to get and hang on to a customer.
Euphoria is a very good programming language, but what's the point??? I thought
the point was for Euphoria to be useful. It can't be useful and unless it get
"used". When people are "using" Euphoria than RDS can rack up on sales. I'm not
saying give away "the farm", but hey... If you have unused SWAMP land, than why
not let somebody use it to build a department store??? Euphoria should be
kicking programming butt and not being confused with drugs, don't you think???
11. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW wrote:
<snip>
> More things to think about:
>
> . You tell people that you learned about this great new programming
> language called Euphoria, but they usually go "What???, Is that like
> Crack???".
If people don't use a language just because of its name, then they are
obviouslaly not really interested in it anyway.
> . You then proceed to, wishfully, give them some programs that you
> created in Euphoria or direct them to this website. But, you then
> often get, "So what's different about using Euphoria in comparison to
> VBScript, Perl, Python, Object Pascal, AutoIt, AutoHotKey, etc...??"
> Of course an Euphoria supporter says the pretty and smart syntax.
Besides other things ...
> But then you mention its PAYWARE and then the other guys are like...
> "Hey man, AutoIT, AutoHotKey, all kinds of version of Pascal, Basic,
> Perl, Python, etc... is FREE. Free, dude, free!!!"
My apartment, my car, my bread and coffee is payware, too.
I also like free stuff, but several people claim to get anything and
everything for free. That is not realistic.
BTW: The main part of Euphoria *is* free.
> . Then you try to go technical with them about it and explain how much
> easier it is to use Euphoria than say C/C++ or even Visual Basic, but
> that argument starts to crack up real soon. Why?? One reas is the
> power of these newer scripting languages. AutoIt, AutoHotKey, all
> kinds of automation/scripting languages, etc... are EASY to learn.
I never saw a general purpose programming language that is as simple and
easy to learn as Euphoria.
> They can do AUTOMATION. You use a MACRO RECORDER and it will record
> your keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc... Now you guys, might think that
> is for babies, but for programming newbies that FREE automation/macro
> recorder is very hard to be. Plus those macro recordings can be saved
> as scripts. So the newbies to automation/scripting languages then can
> get deeper and start modifying the scripts. AutoIT and KixTart, for
> example, can now call DLLs, starting to do COM/OLE, etc...
Euphoria not only can call DLLs, it can *build* DLLs ...
It is *not* a scripting language, you've been told that before. So you
are comparing apples to oranges here.
<snip>
> . You then try to get people to USE Euphoria, but they are like, "What
> the hell am I going to do with it?
That's up to them. They can program almost everything in Euphoria.
<snip>
> I'm saying, do something about this. Give the BINDER away for FREE.
> AutoIT, for example, is a compiled script. It uses the concept of
> "binding" with their script to the AutoIT exe. something very similar
> to Euphoria. If the Binder were free than people would TRY and USE
> Euphoria more.
Unless I have evidence to the contrary, I'll doubt it. What is your
reason for saying that?
<snip>
> . Then I direct some people to Euphoria's website and another story
> unfolds. They can't get Euphoria to INSTALL PROPERLY, they are
> CONFUSED by what to install, they are CONFUSED by how the INCLUDES work
> (which is usually related to install and enviroment setup issues, etc...).
Sorry, I can't understand the problem. The installation is simple. The
documentation is very good.
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
PS: Please insert a line break now and then (say after 70 characters).
This will make your posts *much* better readable and "quoteable".
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
12. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW: My comments are below:
<snip>
> More things to think about:
>
> . You tell people that you learned about this great new programming
> language called Euphoria, but they usually go "What???, Is that like
> Crack???".
If people don't use a language just because of its name, then they are
obviouslaly not really interested in it anyway.
EU-NOW: You are confusing some different concepts here. It not that
people don’t use Euphoria because of it’s name, the issue is that
people do not know about Euphoria, have never programmed in Euphoria,
and since they do NOT know anybody that has used it than they are very
distrusting of it.
> . You then proceed to, wishfully, give them some programs that you
> created in Euphoria or direct them to this website. But, you then
> often get, "So what's different about using Euphoria in comparison to
> VBScript, Perl, Python, Object Pascal, AutoIt, AutoHotKey, etc...??"
> Of course an Euphoria supporter says the pretty and smart syntax.
Besides other things ...
> But then you mention its PAYWARE and then the other guys are like...
> "Hey man, AutoIT, AutoHotKey, all kinds of version of Pascal, Basic,
> Perl, Python, etc... is FREE. Free, dude, free!!!"
My apartment, my car, my bread and coffee is payware, too.
I also like free stuff, but several people claim to get anything and
everything for free. That is not realistic.
BTW: The main part of Euphoria *is* free.
EU-NOW:
You are misunderstanding the point and overlooking the issue of the
Binder-
If you create a “free” program in Euphoria than you have to run it
with other Euphoria components, UNLESS you bind the program or use the
Euphoria to C translator, compile with a freeware C/C++ compiler, and
create and .exe/executable. The .exe/executable is what you give to
your friends and say, “Hey, I made this with Euphoria.” Hopeful
response: ”What, this great program was made in Euphoria? Wow, maybe I
should learn that programming language so I can make apps like these.”
But, if you give people a bunch of strange looking files, tell them
to download “x” or do “y” in order to get into run, etc… Many will NOT
do it. The point is to get people to USE and RELY on Euphoria. That
is not happening they way things are done with Euphoria right now.
When Network Admin. Or companies are using Euphoria to create very
important programs than things are going right for Euphoria and RDS.
Many will not use an executable that has “Adware” on it either. Plus,
a “freeware” Binder of Euphoria, means it can be put to work with no
hassles. You should look at Euphoria from the perspective of its
competition. Those scripting and programming language that are in
“competition” and/or being used INSTEAD of Euphoria are often FREE.
If you are a company and your competition is giving out discounts,
free turkey, etc… with their product than your sales and market share
are usually going to suffer. The only way they don’t usually suffer
is that your product’s QUALITY is so superior to its competition that
it does not matter (like a BMW to a Yugo). Obviously, Euphoria is
being “undercut” by its free competition and it is arguably NOT
technical superior enough or is part of a quality package that can
overcome this.
Another part of this goes back to RDS strategy-
1. RDS is arguably USING FREEWARE apps created by others for
NON-profit, to SELL its products. The most prominent thing you see on
the site is the freeware apps. This can be OK, if we are talking
about RDS putting out a quality package and the freeware is
supplementing it. In Actually, it looks more like the freeware is
providing the main role of support to any of RDS’s products. The main
reason may will want to use Euphoria, besides is very good language
syntax, is the FREEWARE. So, “what” is supporting “what”, in terms of
freeware versus payware, looks backwards…
2. The other issue is ADDING VALUE to a “QUALITY” product. The
Binder is not adding as much value at this point, now that you have
the Euphoria to C translator. RDS products are starting to look like
“GOTCHAs”. A “gotcha” is often considered something a company sells
you after they tricked you into using their product or something that
is essential to using a company’s product. A company selling a
“gotcha” is OK with many consumers when it is clearly adding VALUE.
Making users pay for the Binder in my opinion is actually hurting
Euphoria from catching on. It is also setting RDS up to be CLONED.
Obviously, those that like the Euphoria language and can program are
going to be saying, “Why in the HELL am I paying for the Binder???”
“Why am I paying for an update for this Binder every year???” “Why
does say AutoIT, Kixtart, Free versions of Pascal, Free versions of
Basic, etc… allow me to make FREE .exe/executables, but Euphoria does
not???? Thus, there is this “drive” to have an Open Euphoria project
and that was only a FEW reasons to clone Euphoria. Think about the
other reasons why???
> . Then you try to go technical with them about it and explain how much
> easier it is to use Euphoria than say C/C++ or even Visual Basic, but
> that argument starts to crack up real soon. Why?? One reason is the
> power of these newer scripting languages. AutoIt, AutoHotKey, all
> kinds of automation/scripting languages, etc... are EASY to learn.
I never saw a general purpose programming language that is as simple and
easy to learn as Euphoria.
EU-NOW: Again, I believe you are mistaken. You have been seduced by
Euphoria’s great syntax. Yes, Euphoria is a very good programming
language. Of that there is not doubt, so that’s why I’m here. But,
you also have to think about NEWBIE programmers, PART-time
programmers, and POWER USERS that do NOT want to get too heavily
involved in programming. They want easy, general use, and powerful.
Euphoria is NOT AS easy to setup in many cases as other freeware
programs. This goes back to an oversight in “hooking” newbie users.
. Euphoria is easier than C/C++ there is no doubt, but Euphoria IS NOT
as easy as using a MACRO RECORDER/Automation or SCRIPTING in some
other languages. The reason for this is not just the syntax but the
TOOLS. What kind of EDITOR, IDE, MACRO RECORDER, POP-UP HELP, SYNTAX
COMPLETION, etc… does the programming language have??? Look at
AutoIT, KixTart, etc… The have some SUPERIOR freeware tools in
comparison to Euphoria that makes their languages very easy to learn
and to use. Information on how to use VBScript, Object Pascal, C/C++
is starting to show up everywhere too now and more freeware tools keep
coming for these languages. Its not just about they syntax, but also
about the TOOL offered as well. Now Euphoria has some great freeware
tools, but many do not come from RDS, but from the USERS.
> They can do AUTOMATION. You use a MACRO RECORDER and it will record
> your keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc... Now you guys, might think that
> is for babies, but for programming newbies that FREE automation/macro
> recorder is very hard to be. Plus those macro recordings can be saved
> as scripts. So the newbies to automation/scripting languages then can
> get deeper and start modifying the scripts. AutoIT and KixTart, for
> example, can now call DLLs, starting to do COM/OLE, etc...
Euphoria not only can call DLLs, it can *build* DLLs ...
It is *not* a scripting language, you've been told that before. So you
are comparing apples to oranges here.
EU-NOW:
1st off get it clear in your mind that I never said Euphoria is a
scripting language. I do compare Euphoria with scripting languages
because many scripting languages are very powerful and are coming
close to the “border” of what a scripting language is versus a
programming language. The border is often “building DLLs” and low
level functions, because many scripting languages can CALL DLLs, do
COM/OLE, etc…
So another HUGE factor is how much power do you need in a programming
language??? Many newbie, part-time programmers, network admin., etc…
will NOT see the need to build DLLs or get that deep at first.
Actually, I’m in this group. Therefore, they will use scripting
language and when they have hit a scripting language limits, then they
will switch.
Finally, there is no reason why Euphoria could not DO higher levels
things like AUTOMATION or adapt itself more as a scripting language to
compete with vbscript, jscript, perl, etc… Powerful scripting
languages are TAKING AWAY the need for Euphoria’s simple syntax (if
they even knew what it was) because they are simple too. Obviously,
they are not as powerful as Euphoria yet, but scripting languages like
AutoIT, Kixtart, WinBatch, Pascal/Delphi Script, etc… ARE becoming
increasingly more powerful. Euphoria, could very easily be adapted to
the “high end” to demonstrate its superiority to these other scripting
languages, but its not. That is a shame, so I’ve brought this up.
<snip>
> . You then try to get people to USE Euphoria, but they are like, "What
> the hell am I going to do with it?
That's up to them. They can program almost everything in Euphoria.
<snip>
> I'm saying, do something about this. Give the BINDER away for FREE.
> AutoIT, for example, is a compiled script. It uses the concept of
> "binding" with their script to the AutoIT exe. something very similar
> to Euphoria. If the Binder were free than people would TRY and USE
> Euphoria more.
Unless I have evidence to the contrary, I'll doubt it. What is your
reason for saying that?
EU-NOW: 1ST off the circumstantial evidence is the lack of Euphoria
users. Look around. Euphoria as a technically superior language,
should be “kicking butt”, but it ain’t. Ask yourself why??? Free
scripting languages are “taking the high end” and Free programming
languages are “taking the low end”. C/C++, .NET crap, etc… are still
dominating the professional and world standard side or programming.
So, where does that leave Euphoria??? Euphoria has a rapidly
decreasing small niche.
In fact MARK what I’m typing to you. Euphoria has a small window of
only 1 to 3 years left, before it become an irrelevant computer
language unless it begins to adapt, change, and/or attract more users.
The fastest way for Euphoria to attract more users is for RDS to let
go of the Binder and to give it away for free, to let Euphoria become
open-source, or for an OPEN Source Euphoria Clone to become more
prominent. One of the best way for Euphoria to become more adaptive
and innovative more quickly is to make it open source and for RDS to
make its money on “around” and ever growing Euphoria and through
VALUE adding tools. RDS could write that Euphoria BOOK, it can still
KEEP that Euphoria to C translator, it could push making money off of
expanded SUPPORT service, customized solutions, etc… Even as open
source, there will be money to be made off of Euphoria.
RDS, could setup standards for Euphoria. RDS can embrace the clones,
have them meet RDS standards, and encourage them in order to push the
Euphoria language. OR RDS can refuse to let Euphoria expand and watch
it die or become irrelevant in the next few years.
<snip>
> . Then I direct some people to Euphoria's website and another story
> unfolds. They can't get Euphoria to INSTALL PROPERLY, they are
> CONFUSED by what to install, they are CONFUSED by how the INCLUDES work
> (which is usually related to install and environment setup issues, etc...).
Sorry, I can't understand the problem. The installation is simple. The
documentation is very good.
EU-NOW: When your documentation has newbie users going to the control
panel, system, and adding environmental variables than something is
way WRONG with the setup. OTHER setup programs can figure out HOW to
make things install properly on the main operating system its working
on, so why can’t RDS do the same????
By the way this seems to be one of the re-activated Open Euphoria Links:
ftp://jbn:jbnnoord at 129.125.22.13/peu/
http://www.topica.com/lists/OpenEU/read
http://www.eberlein.org/euphoria/
13. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
<snip everything>
I don't understand the problem. Euphoria is better than just Open Source -- it
is public domain. You can do anything with it. You can change the source,
rename it, and sell it as your own product. You can write your own backend or
binder. You can rename it. By releasing the public domain version of Euphoria,
Rob has relinquished all copyrights to that version. That is what public domain
means.
Like some users on here, you can add features that you think Euphoria should
have and translate and compile it.
People seem to confuse end users of a program with developers. If I wanted to
distribute a Euphoria program without binding or translating it, I would bundle
just the files I needed and use an installer.
If I wanted to create commercial programs, I would have no problem with
purchasing the binder or translator. The binder or translator are not required
to run Euphoria programs, though.
Do Perl or Python have a similar functionality to binding or translating?
If you don't like it, don't use it. There are other tools out there that meet
your criteria for what makes a "good" newbie-friendly language.
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
14. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
On 24 Jan 2005, at 8:44, Jason Gade wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> <snip everything>
>
> I don't understand the problem. Euphoria is better than just Open Source --
> it
> is public domain. You can do anything with it. You can change the source,
> rename it, and sell it as your own product. You can write your own backend or
> binder. You can rename it. By releasing the public domain version of
> Euphoria,
> Rob has relinquished all copyrights to that version. That is what public
> domain
> means.
>
> Like some users on here, you can add features that you think Euphoria should
> have and translate and compile it.
>
> People seem to confuse end users of a program with developers. If I wanted to
> distribute a Euphoria program without binding or translating it, I would
> bundle
> just the files I needed and use an installer.
>
> If I wanted to create commercial programs, I would have no problem with
> purchasing the binder or translator. The binder or translator are not
> required
> to run Euphoria programs, though.
>
> Do Perl or Python have a similar functionality to binding or translating?
>
> If you don't like it, don't use it. There are other tools out there that meet
> your criteria for what makes a "good" newbie-friendly language.
Ditto, however........
Euphoria has qualities that could push it to the fore, in front of non-newbie
languages, such as Lisp, Prolog, Scheme, Smalltalk. And still be as easy
as a "newbie language". If only..... <sigh>. I am having problems running
Matts ooeu at the moment, but if it runs, all new code i write may require
Matts version (with Al's windows server, if i can fix it too. Al, see:
http://Tiggrbox.info/temp/windows.jpg !! ) , instead of the official RDS
version.
Kat
PS: Speaking of OO, WinClass also dies before it opens with "Couldn't link
to C function GetLongPathNameA" error.
PPS: I still wish RDS would verify all the required includes are in contributed
zip files, and that they actually run their demos!
15. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
Kat wrote:
>
> I am having problems running Matts ooeu at the moment...
Can you tell me what the problem is that you're having? Including the
version (the latest release is v1.4.1 at
http://www14.brinkster.com/matthewlewis/projects.htm)?
Matt Lewis
16. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
Kat wrote:
> Ditto, however........
>
> Euphoria has qualities that could push it to the fore, in front of non-newbie
> languages, such as Lisp, Prolog, Scheme, Smalltalk. And still be as easy
> as a "newbie language". If only..... <sigh>.
Yes. There are some mis-features that I would like to see changed in the
"Official" version, and a couple of features I would like to see added. But it
is pretty good for the most part.
I think with the exception of a good ide bundled with the offical Euphoria it
has everything that a newbie needs to get started writing programs. Most of the
mis-features or missing features I see are of more interest to more advanced
programmers.
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
17. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
<Ferlin Mounts Soap Box>
Sounds to me like you are driving a Cadilac and want to Upgrade to a Lamborgini
for FREE.
I have seen some great projects DIE a painful death when they bacame open
source.
One of the things that drew me to Euphoria in the first place was the simplicity
of the language and the small amount of space required to install it and use it.
One of the great things about Euphoria is that there are very few functions to
learn. If Euphoria was to become open source, the developers would start adding
similar functions with just a little bit of difference in it, therefore adding
to the amount of things that a newbie would have to learn.
Most of the powerful programming languages out there today have libraries or
third party components that are created by users, so there is no valid argument
for the libraries or include files contributed by users.
If you take most of the powerful languages available out there and look at them.
You will see what I mean, you have an 850 Megabyte help file to browse through
when you want to find something. Say you want your program to perform a certain
function, you find out that there are 110 different functions to perform this
task, now the question is which one is the most effecient and simple to use?
Let me take a week out of my development time to browse the 850MB help file and
decide which function to use. What a waste of time.
If Euphoria was to go Open Source, and it did not attract more users, because
of the hacking the developers do to it, taking away the simplicity and small
command set. If it did not attract more users, then RDS would not be able to
survive on Support and Translater fees. RDS goes out of business and Euphoria
dies.
If you want a real programming language that is simple to use you end up paying
100's or 1000's of dollars for it. Most of them have a trial version or
educational
version, but they will not create an executable, you have to purchase the full
version to get that functionality.
Euphoria is CHEAP*CHEAP*CHEAP compared to other languages.
As for the adding of Environment Variables, Euphoria used to do that for you,
but a lot of the PAYING users, did not like the idea of an installation program
changing their customized environment, so RDS accomdated them by removing that
from the installation.
If you can not figure out a simple thing like adding evironment variables, with
the instructions included with Euphoria, then you most likely will not be able
to figure out programming.
<Ferlin steps off the soap box>
Later.
Ferlin Scarborough
Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
http://www.gameuniv.net
My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
18. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW wrote:
> EU-NOW: My comments are below:
Please learn to quote properly:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Thanks in advance.
> <snip>
>
>> More things to think about:
>>
>> . You tell people that you learned about this great new programming
>> language called Euphoria, but they usually go "What???, Is that like
>> Crack???".
>
> If people don't use a language just because of its name, then they are
> obviouslaly not really interested in it anyway.
>
> EU-NOW: You are confusing some different concepts here.
Probably because the stuff that you wrote did confuse me.
> It not that
> people don=92t use Euphoria because of it=92s name, the issue is that
> people do not know about Euphoria, have never programmed in Euphoria,
> and since they do NOT know anybody that has used it than they are very
> distrusting of it.
So you are complaining that not everyone on this planet knows Euphoria?
And what has that got to do with Crack? Are you actually surprised when
I am confused by your words?
>> . You then proceed to, wishfully, give them some programs that you
>> created in Euphoria or direct them to this website. But, you then
>> often get, "So what's different about using Euphoria in comparison to
>> VBScript, Perl, Python, Object Pascal, AutoIt, AutoHotKey, etc...??"
>> Of course an Euphoria supporter says the pretty and smart syntax.
>
> Besides other things ...
>
>> But then you mention its PAYWARE and then the other guys are like...
>> "Hey man, AutoIT, AutoHotKey, all kinds of version of Pascal, Basic,
>> Perl, Python, etc... is FREE. Free, dude, free!!!"
>
> My apartment, my car, my bread and coffee is payware, too.
> I also like free stuff, but several people claim to get anything and
> everything for free. That is not realistic.
> BTW: The main part of Euphoria *is* free.
>
> EU-NOW:
>
> You are misunderstanding the point and overlooking the issue of the
> Binder-
>
> If you create a =93free=94 program in Euphoria than you have to run it
> with other Euphoria components, UNLESS you bind the program or use the
> Euphoria to C translator, compile with a freeware C/C++ compiler, and
> create and .exe/executable. The .exe/executable is what you give to
> your friends and say, =93Hey, I made this with Euphoria.=94 Hopeful
> response: =94What, this great program was made in Euphoria? Wow, maybe I
> should learn that programming language so I can make apps like these.=94
That's what I did after I buyed the binder and the translator. You see
it works also when the binder and translator is not free. For me it's
quite normal when I have to pay for a good product. I am also payed for
my work.
<snip>
> You should look at Euphoria from the perspective of its
> competition. Those scripting and programming language that are in
> =93competition=94 and/or being used INSTEAD of Euphoria are often FREE.
What are the free general purpose programming languages that I can use
instead of Euphoria? For instance, I want to build fast 32-bit DLLs for
Windows.
> If you are a company and your competition is giving out discounts,
> free turkey, etc=85 with their product than your sales and market share
> are usually going to suffer. The only way they don=92t usually suffer
> is that your product=92s QUALITY is so superior to its competition that
> it does not matter (like a BMW to a Yugo). Obviously, Euphoria is
> being =93undercut=94 by its free competition and it is arguably NOT
> technical superior enough or is part of a quality package that can
> overcome this.
Maybe, I don't know. It's RDS' product, and it's their and only their
decision how much discounts they want to give.
> Another part of this goes back to RDS strategy-
>
> 1. RDS is arguably USING FREEWARE apps created by others for
> NON-profit, to SELL its products. The most prominent thing you see on
> the site is the freeware apps. This can be OK, if we are talking
> about RDS putting out a quality package and the freeware is
> supplementing it. In Actually, it looks more like the freeware is
> providing the main role of support to any of RDS=92s products. The main
> reason may will want to use Euphoria, besides is very good language
> syntax, is the FREEWARE. So, =93what=94 is supporting =93what=94, in ter=
ms of
> freeware versus payware, looks backwards=85
And what exactly is here the problem in your opinion?
> 2. The other issue is ADDING VALUE to a =93QUALITY=94 product. The
> Binder is not adding as much value at this point, now that you have
> the Euphoria to C translator.
Hm? Above you wrote, how important the binder is in your opinion, and
now it is not adding much value?
> RDS products are starting to look like
> =93GOTCHAs=94. A =93gotcha=94 is often considered something a company se=
lls
> you after they tricked you into using their product or something that
> is essential to using a company=92s product. A company selling a
> =93gotcha=94 is OK with many consumers when it is clearly adding VALUE.
> Making users pay for the Binder in my opinion is actually hurting
> Euphoria from catching on. It is also setting RDS up to be CLONED.
> Obviously, those that like the Euphoria language and can program are
> going to be saying, =93Why in the HELL am I paying for the Binder???=94
IIRC, you are the first one on this list who says so.
> =93Why am I paying for an update for this Binder every year???=94 =93Why=
> does say AutoIT, Kixtart, Free versions of Pascal, Free versions of
> Basic, etc=85 allow me to make FREE .exe/executables, but Euphoria does
> not????
Again, Euphoria *does* allow us to make free executables. After buying
the binder or translator. It is quite normal to pay for a good product,
that I want. Your main point seems to be, that you want to get everything
for free. Did you already write a mail to BMW, claiming they should give
away their cars for free? Of course, there is no doubt that this would
increase the number of people who use their cars.
> Thus, there is this =93drive=94 to have an Open Euphoria project
> and that was only a FEW reasons to clone Euphoria. Think about the
> other reasons why???
>
>> . Then you try to go technical with them about it and explain how much
>> easier it is to use Euphoria than say C/C++ or even Visual Basic, but
>> that argument starts to crack up real soon. Why?? One reason is the
>> power of these newer scripting languages. AutoIt, AutoHotKey, all
>> kinds of automation/scripting languages, etc... are EASY to learn.
>
> I never saw a general purpose programming language that is as simple and
> easy to learn as Euphoria.
Please understand, that the sentence above is a statement about my
personal experience.
> EU-NOW: Again, I believe you are mistaken.
Hm? You are believing that you know better about my personal experience,
than I do myself?
> You have been seduced by
> Euphoria=92s great syntax. Yes, Euphoria is a very good programming
> language. Of that there is not doubt, so that=92s why I=92m here. But,
> you also have to think about NEWBIE programmers, PART-time
> programmers, and POWER USERS that do NOT want to get too heavily
> involved in programming. They want easy, general use, and powerful.
In my opinion, these three groups of people have different needs. It is
very difficult anyway, to make a product that suits a broad range of
different needs. However, I think Euphoria is good for newbie programmers,
part-time programmers and professional programmers. You can find all
those programmers in this community.
> Euphoria is NOT AS easy to setup in many cases as other freeware
> programs. This goes back to an oversight in =93hooking=94 newbie users.
>
> . Euphoria is easier than C/C++ there is no doubt, but Euphoria IS NOT
> as easy as using a MACRO RECORDER/Automation or SCRIPTING in some
> other languages. The reason for this is not just the syntax but the
> TOOLS. What kind of EDITOR, IDE, MACRO RECORDER, POP-UP HELP, SYNTAX
> COMPLETION, etc=85 does the programming language have??? Look at
> AutoIT, KixTart, etc=85 The have some SUPERIOR freeware tools in
> comparison to Euphoria that makes their languages very easy to learn
> and to use. Information on how to use VBScript, Object Pascal, C/C++
> is starting to show up everywhere too now and more freeware tools keep
> coming for these languages. Its not just about they syntax, but also
> about the TOOL offered as well. Now Euphoria has some great freeware
> tools, but many do not come from RDS, but from the USERS.
So what? I'm interested whether a tool does its job, not who made it.
>> They can do AUTOMATION. You use a MACRO RECORDER and it will record
>> your keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc... Now you guys, might think that
>> is for babies, but for programming newbies that FREE automation/macro
>> recorder is very hard to be. Plus those macro recordings can be saved
>> as scripts. So the newbies to automation/scripting languages then can
>> get deeper and start modifying the scripts. AutoIT and KixTart, for
>> example, can now call DLLs, starting to do COM/OLE, etc...
>
> Euphoria not only can call DLLs, it can *build* DLLs ...
> It is *not* a scripting language, you've been told that before. So you
> are comparing apples to oranges here.
>
> EU-NOW:
> 1st off get it clear in your mind that I never said Euphoria is a
> scripting language. I do compare Euphoria with scripting languages
Yes, and that's comparing apples to oranges.
> because many scripting languages are very powerful and are coming
> close to the =93border=94 of what a scripting language is versus a
> programming language. The border is often =93building DLLs=94 and low
> level functions, because many scripting languages can CALL DLLs, do
> COM/OLE, etc=85
>
> So another HUGE factor is how much power do you need in a programming
> language??? Many newbie, part-time programmers, network admin., etc=85
> will NOT see the need to build DLLs or get that deep at first.
> Actually, I=92m in this group. Therefore, they will use scripting
> language and when they have hit a scripting language limits, then they
> will switch.
They are free to do so.
> Finally, there is no reason why Euphoria could not DO higher levels
> things like AUTOMATION or adapt itself more as a scripting language to
> compete with vbscript, jscript, perl, etc=85 Powerful scripting
> languages are TAKING AWAY the need for Euphoria=92s simple syntax (if
> they even knew what it was) because they are simple too. Obviously,
> they are not as powerful as Euphoria yet, but scripting languages like
> AutoIT, Kixtart, WinBatch, Pascal/Delphi Script, etc=85 ARE becoming
> increasingly more powerful. Euphoria, could very easily be adapted to
> the =93high end=94 to demonstrate its superiority to these other scriptin=
g
> languages, but its not. That is a shame, so I=92ve brought this up.
>
> <snip>
>
>> . You then try to get people to USE Euphoria, but they are like, "What
>> the hell am I going to do with it?
>
> That's up to them. They can program almost everything in Euphoria.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm saying, do something about this. Give the BINDER away for FREE.
>> AutoIT, for example, is a compiled script. It uses the concept of
>> "binding" with their script to the AutoIT exe. something very similar
>> to Euphoria. If the Binder were free than people would TRY and USE
>> Euphoria more.
>
> Unless I have evidence to the contrary, I'll doubt it. What is your
> reason for saying that?
>
> EU-NOW: 1ST off the circumstantial evidence is the lack of Euphoria
> users. Look around. Euphoria as a technically superior language,
> should be =93kicking butt=94, but it ain=92t. Ask yourself why??? Free
> scripting languages are =93taking the high end=94 and Free programming
> languages are =93taking the low end=94. C/C++, .NET crap, etc=85 are sti=
ll
> dominating the professional and world standard side or programming.
> So, where does that leave Euphoria??? Euphoria has a rapidly
> decreasing small niche.
>
> In fact MARK what I=92m typing to you. Euphoria has a small window of
> only 1 to 3 years left, before it become an irrelevant computer
> language unless it begins to adapt, change, and/or attract more users.
Maybe you want to mark what Niels Bohr said:
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." 
<snip>
No doubt Euphoria can be improved (and it continuously *has been*
improved in the past). But I think that such a "sweeping blow",
like you did, is inadequate.
Regards,
Juergen
19. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
> <Ferlin Mounts Soap Box>
>
> Sounds to me like you are driving a Cadilac and want to Upgrade to a
> Lamborgini
> for FREE.
To me it sounded that he prefers BMW. I personally would not object
against Porsche. For free, of course.
SCNR
<snip>
> If you want a real programming language that is simple to use you end up
> paying
> 100's or 1000's of dollars for it. Most of them have a trial version or
> educational
> version, but they will not create an executable, you have to purchase the full
> version to get that functionality.
>
> Euphoria is CHEAP*CHEAP*CHEAP compared to other languages.
Yep.
> As for the adding of Environment Variables, Euphoria used to do that for you,
> but a lot of the PAYING users, did not like the idea of an installation
> program
> changing their customized environment, so RDS accomdated them by removing that
> from the installation.
IIRC, it was not the suggestion to remove that opportunity completely
from the installer, but to let the user choose whether or not s/he wants
the installer to change anything on their system. But (again IIRC) the
2.5 beta installer does *not* provide such a choice.
> If you can not figure out a simple thing like adding evironment variables,
> with
> the instructions included with Euphoria, then you most likely will not be able
> to figure out programming.
TRUE*TRUE*TRUE
> <Ferlin steps off the soap box>
Regards,
Juergen
20. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW, you're hitting the real problem, I think:
Most advanced programmers know how to use non-"newbie" languages, and hardly
need Euphoria. C++ or Java are not too difficult for them to learn, are
powerful and flexible enough - more than Eu-, and these coders may be able to
use paid company resources to develop using these.
Part-time programmers would be interested in getting a more versatile, more
powerful etc etc Euphoria, but they lack the mix of available time, patience
and programming expertise to pursue this goal hard enough and make it a
real-life thing.
In this sense, Eu is a niche programming language, and carving a niche out of
a niche may not lead to a widely used language. If it was not, RDS would have
already died from its stifling licensing scheme, or relinquished it years ago,
because of such clones.
You are clamoring for an open source Eu. See what happened on the OpenEu list
you provided a link to? Perhaps it's not dead, but currently dormant. 'Want to
help out?
By the way, also visit the project page at http://sourceforge.peu.net/ . It is
not related any longer to P.Eberlein's or Menno's origianl PEU, even though
Zoec reuses sizable chunks of the code.
CChris
21. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:12:36 -0800, EU-NOW <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
wrote:
>If you create a =93free=94 program in Euphoria than you have to run it
>with other Euphoria components, UNLESS you bind
<snip>
> But, if you give people a bunch of strange looking files, tell them
>to download =93x=94 or do =93y=94 in order to get into run, etc=85 Many wi=
ll NOT=20
>do it.
You don't need to do that at all.
Copy exw.exe, and any files from C:/Euphoria/include you use into the
directory with your application code.
Run it there. It works just fine.
If you want, you can rename C:/Euphoria, edit out any settings in your
autoexec.bat and/or remove anything in the system registry, [and if
you like, reboot] - it won't make any difference. It will still work.
The only reason you might need a (free) binder/shrouder/translator is
the luxury of distributing a single file. Personally I see little gain
over distributing a single directory.
<snip>
>Another part of this goes back to RDS strategy-
>
>1. RDS is arguably USING FREEWARE apps created by others for
>NON-profit, to SELL its products. The most prominent thing you see on
>the site is the freeware apps.
I believe the complete lack of PAYWARE apps on the site sends the
wrong message. A healthy balance, suggesting you can actually make
some (real, not monopoly micro-dollar) money can only be a good thing.
Regards,
Pete
22. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
On 24 Jan 2005, at 9:36, Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> Kat wrote:
> >
> > I am having problems running Matts ooeu at the moment...
>
> Can you tell me what the problem is that you're having? Including the
I sent you email this morning, privately, but re-sent it a min ago to the list
if
your email is down.
Object Oriented Euphoria v1.3
Euphoria Interpreter 2.5 alpha for 32-bit Windows.
Source code provided by Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
Rapid Deployment Software is not responsible for any damage.
Modified by Matt Lewis
> version (the latest release is v1.4.1 at
> http://www14.brinkster.com/matthewlewis/projects.htm)?
From: http://www14.brinkster.com/matthewlewis/projects.htm
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat
23. Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
Kat wrote:
>
> > version (the latest release is v1.4.1 at
> > http://www14.brinkster.com/matthewlewis/projects.htm
Should be .html.
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
