OpenEuphoria

RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Dec 21, 2004
• 579 views

Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
> 
> 
> posted by: Ferlin Scarborough <ferlin1 at bellsouth.net>
> 
> Robert Craig wrote:
> > 
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> <snip>
> > > What about my software customers? I should expect that every one of them
> > > can afford a brand new computer every year because Euphoria is catering
> > > only to the now?
> > 
> > You have customers?
> > Parse time is extremely important to you?
> > Why not get the binder for $39, or in your case, upgrade for $24?
> > Then your app will start up even *faster* than with 2.4.
> >  
> > > Most people don't have the slightest clue how to operate a computer,
> > 
> > But you want them to run your app as a bunch of separate files?
> > Why not bind into one .exe?
> > 
> <snip>
> > 
> > Regards,
> >    Rob Craig
> >    Rapid Deployment Software
> >    <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
> > 
> 
> I have to agree with Rob on this one, WHY in the world would you want to 
> FORCE
> your customers to have to install the Euphoria Interpreter in order to 
> be able
> to run your software.  If most people "have no clue" how to operate a 
> computer
> why confuse them more by having them run your software through an 
> intreperter
> instead of just clicking on an exe file?
> 
> Also, it's not really a good idea to release your source code with your 
> software
> where the customer can get in there and muck things up.  If I was a 
> customer
> I would prefer clicking on an EXE file and not having to run through an 
> interpreter, adding more file associations or something just so I can 
> click
> on and .ex or .exw file and have it run the interpreter for me.
> 
> It just plain don't make any sense, if your software is any where near 
> good
> you should be able to make enough money from it to be able to afford a 
> measly
> $39.00.
> 
> Just my .02 cents.
> 
> Later.
> 
> Ferlin Scarborough
> 
> Learn To Program Games in Free Courses At
> http://www.gameuniv.net
> 
> My Euphoria Home Page
> http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft

If I wanted a compiler, I would be using a compiler.
I use an interpreter for my benefit not for my clients.
If I have to compile, run, debug, compile, run, debug, then why on EARTH 
should I use an interpreter? Especially with 2.5 that doesn't even parse 
on the fly, it's a glorified virtual machine, not an interpreter 
anymore. Add on top of that, a hefty load time ranging in the seconds, 
on a fast PC. That would apply to compile time too. Not just loading 
time.

I also choose to use an intepreter because I take advantage of that 
trait. I often use dynamic inclusion, and also make config files using 
eu source. You can't compile either of those methods.

Installing euphoria on a clients machine is not a big deal either.
They don't know any different whatsoever. That would be a different 
story if I tried that with 2.5

What about CGI apps? We are supposed to bind them too?

Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy