Re: x-languages to euphoria translators
=A9koda wrote:
> Are there programs which translate euphoria source=20
> code to another language source code (C++,...)=20
> and vice versa? (is that right?)
Porting *from* Euphoria is a bit difficult, since structures with =
garbage
collection are, as far as I know, unique to Euphoria.
> Really useful would be programs which translate C++=20
> and Visual Basic source code to euphoria.
Euphoria lacks an inheritance mechanism, as well as good support for
pointers. I don't think a C++ translation would be that successful. The =
main
problem with porting VB would be translating the Win32 calls. I don't =
know
any Win32 library for Euphoria that supports the range of controls and
events that VB does.
> I haven't yet found good euphoria editor! Where is some=20
> good, which will list all functions, ...=20
Sounds like you want a Windows editor, since you (apparently) already =
tried
EE. There's an editor widget in Win32Lib IDE that supports syntax =
coloring
and so forth. You could easily hack that into a full editor. Barring =
that,
you're probably better off with some programmer's editor.
> Why isn't source code for euphoria=20
> interpreter available?
RDS makes money by selling an 'enhanced' version of the interpreter.
Publishing the source would eliminate their revenue. No revenue means =
no
future enhancements. Bad idea.
If you want an open source version of Euphoria, Pete Eberlein's written =
one.
> Where are some good hacker programs, so I can easily edit=20
> machine code, remove registration thing...
There's no registration thing to remove.
> Program which would translate machine code to=20
> assembly and then higher would be great man!
You should look a bit harder. Pete's already coded an assembly toolkit.
> Is it possible to write BIG programs/games in euphoria,=20
> like Quake for example.
Yes.
> Are euphoria [bound] programs (translated to machine code)=20
> a lot quicker than interpreted?=20
=20
Binding (more or less) just sticks the source code and interpreter =
together,
so that they are a single file. So they aren't compiled.
This has been discussed at length here; the bottom line is that =
converting
to 'pure' assembly won't offer that much of a speed up. Euphoria =
already
converts much of the code into in-line assembly, and is designed so =
that it
doesn't have a high overhead for function calls (unlike Forth, which =
has to
push/pop with argument and routine call).
> They could be as fast as C programs!? Then=20
> euphoria would be really serious language.
In that case, you might just want to stick to Assembly, since it's the =
most
'serious' programming language you'll find.
-- David Cuny
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
