1. [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
[LP] Long Post
[RC] Robert Craig
hence, [LP-RC]
Hello Robert Craig,
My love of Euphoria has wained(sp) greatly after having seen the slow
and painful nature of creating Windows programs with it.
No, I haven't produced a single Euphoria Windows program.
No, I haven't used Win32lib. Played with it once or twice.
Love where it has gone and is going. Thankful for its existance.
It just isn't friendly enough for me to actual create a product
with.
No, I haven't use the any of the IDE's. Played with one of them
at least once. Saw it to be very glitchy, slow, Undependable.
I have read many post along those same lines.
Yes, I looked at your Windows demo/example that come with the
interpreter. I screamed in agony at the amount of code required just
to say, "Hello World".
Yes, I have considered writing Euphoria Windows programs. Pretty
GUI interface, Menus, Buttons, ListViews and such.
Yes, I see the how much easier Win32lib is and yet it is still
very difficult.
Finally.
Yes, I have used Visual Basic in the past. That was my first
experience with Windows programming. I feel it is the standard to
reach when creating and IDE for Windows Programming. The current
IDE is trying to reach that. It likely fails cause it is glitchy.
and sits ontop of the glitchy Win32lib.e that it is trying to
make easier to use.
I simply see this. I've seen Euphoria pass through a large portion
of time with little advancment. I have serious doubts that it will
ever be what I had expected and hoped of it. I mean, how long has
Euphoria been Windows capable? How many times have certain features
been practically begged for by many and simply ignored. Threading!!!
I'm sorry, but I simply see that as a must for the Windows programming.
And I'm not a Windows programmer. One of us must be blind.
OOP, I believe that could make windows programming a lot easier. but eh,
I don't really know for sure. Could simply confuse at lot of people.
GOTO's, Please no. I feel blessed that this has never been put in.
Um, folks, I got one that I think most of you will NOT like.
Backwards compatiblity.
Come on, Split the dang thing already. Stop trying to work around
certain things that hold the Entire language back from moving forward.
Stop at a version somewhere and say, "The following features have been
altered and are no longer backwards compatible. You will have to
update your code to use the new design or continue to use the old
interpreter."
NOW, I say split for a reason.
Once you stop updating the old style with new features and wizbangs.
You don't stop working on it completely.
BUG FIXES
EASY OPTIMIZATIONS
Assuming you finally decide to make that leap.
ISSUES:
NameSpaces
pixel() vs. display_image() vs. display_text_image()
NameSpaces is in bad design.
image.e includes graphics.e therefore if I include image.e then I
don't have to include graphics.e. (BAD) As convenient as this has
been for many, this is simply bad. Reason: Digging forever trying
to find where that global that has been defined, what it has been
defined to, can you reuse it, and if not then which will be easier
to rename through-out all my code.
Another Reason: Time to share the code with a non-euphorian.
Well, I only included image.e.
So, I only need to give send them:
ex.exe
myprog.ex
image.e - SORRY, you forgot about graphics.e
I don't know which standard include it is. but.. there is one that
includes machine.e
pixel() vs. display_image() vs. display_text_image()
What's up with that?
pixel(pixels, {x, y})
display_image({x, y}, picture)
display_text_image({y, x}, text_block) -- yeah, this helps.
during the split process, fix the problem. Why in the world did you
allow this simple parameter possitional arrangment of {x, y} to
become a problem for ALL THESE PEOPLE. Fix it when and if you split
it. Oh, goody, we also have {y, x} for all text mode stuff.
you like to call it {line, column} but that doesn't change the fact
of {horz, vert} is not {vert, horz}.
Well, I guess that is enough ranting for now.
Lucius L. Hilley III - Unkmar
2. [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
[LP] Long Post
[RC] Robert Craig
hence, [LP-RC]
Hello Robert Craig,
My love of Euphoria has wained(sp) greatly after having seen the slow
and painful nature of creating Windows programs with it.
No, I haven't produced a single Euphoria Windows program.
No, I haven't used Win32lib. Played with it once or twice.
Love where it has gone and is going. Thankful for its existance.
It just isn't friendly enough for me to actual create a product
with.
No, I haven't use the any of the IDE's. Played with one of them
at least once. Saw it to be very glitchy, slow, Undependable.
I have read many post along those same lines.
Yes, I looked at your Windows demo/example that come with the
interpreter. I screamed in agony at the amount of code required just
to say, "Hello World".
Yes, I have considered writing Euphoria Windows programs. Pretty
GUI interface, Menus, Buttons, ListViews and such.
Yes, I see the how much easier Win32lib is and yet it is still
very difficult.
Finally.
Yes, I have used Visual Basic in the past. That was my first
experience with Windows programming. I feel it is the standard to
reach when creating and IDE for Windows Programming. The current
IDE is trying to reach that. It likely fails cause it is glitchy.
and sits ontop of the glitchy Win32lib.e that it is trying to
make easier to use.
I simply see this. I've seen Euphoria pass through a large portion
of time with little advancment. I have serious doubts that it will
ever be what I had expected and hoped of it. I mean, how long has
Euphoria been Windows capable? How many times have certain features
been practically begged for by many and simply ignored. Threading!!!
I'm sorry, but I simply see that as a must for the Windows programming.
And I'm not a Windows programmer. One of us must be blind.
OOP, I believe that could make windows programming a lot easier. but eh, I don't
really know for sure. Could simply confuse at lot of people.
GOTO's, Please no. I feel blessed that this has never been put in.
Um, folks, I got one that I think most of you will NOT like.
Backwards compatiblity.
Come on, Split the dang thing already. Stop trying to work around
certain things that hold the Entire language back from moving forward.
Stop at a version somewhere and say, "The following features have been
altered and are no longer backwards compatible. You will have to
update your code to use the new design or continue to use the old
interpreter."
NOW, I say split for a reason.
Once you stop updating the old style with new features and wizbangs.
You don't stop working on it completely.
BUG FIXES
EASY OPTIMIZATIONS
Assuming you finally decide to make that leap.
ISSUES:
NameSpaces
pixel() vs. display_image() vs. display_text_image()
NameSpaces is in bad design.
image.e includes graphics.e therefore if I include image.e then I
don't have to include graphics.e. (BAD) As convenient as this has
been for many, this is simply bad. Reason: Digging forever trying
to find where that global that has been defined, what it has been
defined to, can you reuse it, and if not then which will be easier
to rename through-out all my code.
Another Reason: Time to share the code with a non-euphorian.
Well, I only included image.e.
So, I only need to give send them:
ex.exe
myprog.ex
image.e - SORRY, you forgot about graphics.e
I don't know which standard include it is. but.. there is one that
includes machine.e
pixel() vs. display_image() vs. display_text_image()
What's up with that?
pixel(pixels, {x, y})
display_image({x, y}, picture)
display_text_image({y, x}, text_block) -- yeah, this helps.
during the split process, fix the problem. Why in the world did you
allow this simple parameter possitional arrangment of {x, y} to
become a problem for ALL THESE PEOPLE. Fix it when and if you split
it. Oh, goody, we also have {y, x} for all text mode stuff.
you like to call it {line, column} but that doesn't change the fact
of {horz, vert} is not {vert, horz}.
Well, I guess that is enough ranting for now.
Lucius L. Hilley III - Unkmar
3. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jun 19, 2003
Lucius's post below reminds me of the time when a 6502 8bit cpu did
multiple windows with wordwrap and mouse, both descrete and timeslice
multiprocessing, and ran basic language,,, all with under 64K of ram. And
the restricted goto was wonderful, i wrote it: i could goto :labels or the
contents of variables. Lack of sequences wasn't a problem, since i indexed
each var anyhow. If it weren't for the lack of a upgrade to the cpu, with the
memory and harddrives of today's puters, i'd still be using that codebase.
The whole OS would fit several times over into the cpu cache of a modern
cpu. So why isn't anyone else using the olde OSs?
Kat
On 19 Jun 2003, at 18:00, Lucius Hilley wrote:
>
>
> [LP] Long Post
> [RC] Robert Craig
> hence, [LP-RC]
>
> Hello Robert Craig,
>
> My love of Euphoria has wained(sp) greatly after having seen the slow
> and painful nature of creating Windows programs with it.
<snip>
4. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
> Lucius's post below reminds me of the time when a 6502 8bit cpu did
> multiple windows with wordwrap and mouse, both descrete and timeslice
> multiprocessing, and ran basic language,,, all with under 64K of ram. And
> the restricted goto was wonderful, i wrote it: i could goto :labels or the
> contents of variables. Lack of sequences wasn't a problem, since i indexed
> each var anyhow. If it weren't for the lack of a upgrade to the cpu, with
the
> memory and harddrives of today's puters, i'd still be using that codebase.
> The whole OS would fit several times over into the cpu cache of a modern
> cpu. So why isn't anyone else using the olde OSs?
Why don't ya get an Amiga?
5. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jun 19, 2003
On 19 Jun 2003, at 16:27, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> > Lucius's post below reminds me of the time when a 6502 8bit cpu did
> > multiple windows with wordwrap and mouse, both descrete and timeslice
> > multiprocessing, and ran basic language,,, all with under 64K of ram. And
> > the
> > restricted goto was wonderful, i wrote it: i could goto :labels or the
> > contents of variables. Lack of sequences wasn't a problem, since i indexed
> > each var anyhow. If it weren't for the lack of a upgrade to the cpu, with
> the
> > memory and harddrives of today's puters, i'd still be using that codebase.
> > The
> > whole OS would fit several times over into the cpu cache of a modern cpu. So
> > why isn't anyone else using the olde OSs?
>
> Why don't ya get an Amiga?
I did have an Amiga. It emulated the 6502 in software, complete with slow
speed and memory restricted to 64K.
Kat
6. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
> I did have an Amiga. It emulated the 6502 in software, complete with slow
> speed and memory restricted to 64K.
I'm sure you could pick up a cheap C-64 somewhere 'round there, or on eBay.
:)
Then, engineer your own additional hardware and make the sucker work for ya!
7. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jun 19, 2003
On 19 Jun 2003, at 16:44, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> > I did have an Amiga. It emulated the 6502 in software, complete with slow
> > speed and memory restricted to 64K.
>
> I'm sure you could pick up a cheap C-64 somewhere 'round there, or on eBay. :)
I have two C64 and a VIC20 and a TI-99 and a ZX-80.
> Then, engineer your own additional hardware and make the sucker work for ya!
It's a good alternative to Eu, i spose. The 6502 is remarkably easy to
emulate in descrete hardware, and i am no novice to rigging the rest of the
chipset....
Kat,
thinking of 74F series chips
8. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
> > > I did have an Amiga. It emulated the 6502 in software, complete with
slow
> > > speed and memory restricted to 64K.
> >
> > I'm sure you could pick up a cheap C-64 somewhere 'round there, or on
eBay. :)
>
> I have two C64 and a VIC20 and a TI-99 and a ZX-80.
Well, I know they have C64 emulators for i386 chips and OSes... are they
really that bad/slow?
> > Then, engineer your own additional hardware and make the sucker work for
ya!
>
> It's a good alternative to Eu, i spose. The 6502 is remarkably easy to
> emulate in descrete hardware, and i am no novice to rigging the rest of
the
> chipset....
I really hate Commodore for what they didn't do with their kick-ass PCs...
My very first computer was a VIC-20. My last love was an Amiga. ;)
9. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
Lucius Hilley wrote:
> My love of Euphoria has wained(sp) greatly after having seen the slow
> and painful nature of creating Windows programs with it.
>
> No, I haven't produced a single Euphoria Windows program.
>
> No, I haven't used Win32lib. Played with it once or twice.
> Love where it has gone and is going. Thankful for its existance.
> It just isn't friendly enough for me to actual create a product
> with.
...
Hi Lucius
Have you tried EUwinGUI and its Windows Designer. This really is very easy
to get a program working.
Before you give up give it a try.
Ray
10. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jun 19, 2003
On 19 Jun 2003, at 16:56, C. K. Lester wrote:
<snip>
> I really hate Commodore for what they didn't do with their kick-ass PCs...
Commodore couldn't sell the PC clones in the usa due to FUD campaign by
that big blue company. They did outsell other PC clones in Europe.
Kat
11. Re: [LP-RC] Euphoria devotee?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:00:13 +0000, Lucius Hilley
<l3euphoria at bellsouth.net> wrote:
<My apologie to all who respondended better. hic.>
>No, I haven't produced a single Euphoria Windows program.
>=20
>No, I haven't used Win32lib. Played with it once or twice.
<etc etc>
Well DUH you are in my idiot file. Goodnight.
Pete
