OpenEuphoria

Re: C translator possibilities

• Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at BUFFNET.NET> May 19, 2000
• 503 views

On Fri, 19 May 2000 09:05:10 -0400, Irv Mullins <irv at ELLIJAY.COM> wrote:

>Why the sudden need for a compiler, when we have been told repeatedly how
>fast Euphoria runs? "Almost as fast as some compiled C programs", is a
>phrase
>I remember.
>
>Is this compiler project just a way to avoid fixing those problems that
have
>been
>discussed ad nauseum in this forum? Things that stand in the way of
Euphoria
>being more widely used: proper namespaceing, for example. Is it really so
>difficult to fix this?

 Irv:

  What ROB should have done long ago, was add a DOS extender to his
  interpeter that supports DOS DLL's and let the user's add features of
  their own. Then whenever someone comes up with a good idea, ROB could
  move that featue into the CORE interpeter if he thought it was a good
  feature. In that way if ROB didn't want to add the feature the users
  could still use it by external DLL. DLL's can be used on all the other
  platforms so all Rob has to do is support interpeter across the other
  platforms the same way he does now. The users don't need a compiler
  they just need a easy way to be able to extend the language. There
  are free DOS extenders out there like WDOSX95 that support DLLs. He
  says the compiler could use DOS4GW which is not free and can not be
  bound into the program but is external. A compiler will have additional
  cost plus bring up a cragmire of new issues like compatable object
  files, linkers, as you know there is no universal compiler or linker.

 Bernie