RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Jason Gade wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> > my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
>
> Almost any web browser or office suite takes longer than 2 seconds to
> start up.
I compared it to compilers, not to applications in general.
You don't have to open a new instance of MS Word everytime you edit your
document and want to see the changes.
>
> <snip>
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > They don't have to run a bunch of files. Task scheduler runs it. And
> > setting up a euphoria environment is no different than requiring a user
> > to have a runtime module for java.
>
> What do you mean Task scheduler runs it? I hope you don't mean Task
> Manager. I doubt that most computer newbies understand Task Manager any
> better than they understand how to set up their computer to have the
> proper environment to run the interpreter. Are you saying that it is
> better to have the customer set up Euphoria on his or her machine, set
> the environment variables and associations properly than it is to have a
> single exe with perhaps a handful of support files?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Firstly, I won't buy it on principle.
> > Second, binding defeats the purpose of using an interpeter.
> > If I MUST bind, then I should just use a compiler instead.
> > Third, I can't parse on the fly with 2.5
> > Fourth, I can't get around eu's include system anymore.
> > And finally, I don't want to bind all my programs.
> > I use euphoria because it's interpreted, not just because it's a high
> > level language and because I like it's syntax.
>
> There's alway Python... it's interpreted. Or Perl. Or the various
> versions of BASIC. Or anything from
> ://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Interpreted/
> .
>
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > You are constantly putting down Euphoria, myself, and Euphoria users,
> > > yet you have been hanging around the Euphoria community for many
> > > years. Obviously you have not found a better alternative in all that
> > > time.
> >
> > Is that a point in your favour? Was that supposed to be insulting to me?
> > It just shows how little you regard your customers.
> >
> > I've been around for several years petitioning for advancements and
> > offering suggestions to improve the presentation and organization of
> > euphoria. I've offered my help on numerous occasions as have others, yet
> > you continuously decline, and yet you continuously fail to meet the
> > demands of the community.
> >
> > Maybe if you would listen more, I would bitch less.
> > I'm not going to accomplish anything by patting you on the back for
> > efforts that nobody asked for.
> >
> > Actually, I DID send you a personal email last year commending you for
> > putting some work into finally updating the website, and offered several
> > suggestions that you replied to with general agreement, but obviously
> > you were just humouring me, because Jason Gade just finished asking for
> > one of the very same suggestions I made. And the web update didn't go
> > very far either.
> >
> > So, praise didn't work either. I'll stick with bickering, it's effective
> > at least to some extent. If I can't affect you, then at least I can
> > affect your patrons. Maybe some of the new, prospective users can be
> > more enlightened than I was, and move on before they get attached.
> >
> > Kind words get overlooked, but everyone wants to know what's going on
> > when there is contention.
> >
> > When either the community starts responding more, or you do, then maybe
> > it will be more beneficial to commend instead of condemn.
> >
> > At least I can say, 2.5 has had one good effect. It's bringing people
> > out of their closets. I have never seen as much feedback for any release
> > of euphoria, or suggestions made. I'm glad to see people speaking up,
> > instead of just walking away.
> >
> >
> > Chris Bensler
> > Code is Alchemy
>
> Chris, I respect your opinions. It also saddens me when people who have
> contributed a lot to Euphoria get pissed when RDS stubbornly discounts
> their views.
>
> So, who is the audience for Euphoria? I think that it is, and has
> always been, programmers seeking a step up from BASIC. Not a C killer.
> Not a Java killer. Not a major applications or systems language.
>
> Users see promise in the language, not because of the fact that it is
> interpreted but because of the fact that it is fast, expressive, and has
> a cool feature in sequences. The frustration comes when those users
> want features added to Euphoria to move it into the major applications
> realm. I think RDS has made very clear that Euphoria is for the
> beginning to intermediate programmer.
>
> But what do I know, I'm just a hardware guy... ;^)
>
> =====================================
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
Let me explain WHY I am so adamant.
First of all. I LIKE Euphoria. So why all the complaining all the time?
It boils down to the ability to get supporting software tools to assist
with Euphoria programming. Not by RDS, but by other contributors like
you and I, just as we've all been doing for the past however many years.
There just isn't enough of us.
Currently, there is about 1 to 2 dozen contributions to the RDS archives
in any one month. Alot of the time those contribuutions are from the
same people, and alot of the times those contributions are updates to
previous contribs. That's not very good statistics for a programming
language. It's alive but not kicking very hard.
So the question is, why isn't there very many people using Euphoria?
1. The quality of the online Euphoria resources is below-par. These are
the first things that people see when they come to the eu site.
Regardless of the gaudy theme, the site is inadequately organized. There
is not enough documentation available, such as tutorials.
There is not enough standardization of contributions.
There is not enough background information.
...more things I can't think of right now...
2. RDS fails to meet the users demands. Not just mine, but anybody's.
It doesn't matter if the entire community is in general concensus,
Robert Craig will not budge from his 'vision'
3. There is not enough quality, standardized libraries and tools in the
archives.
So, my motivation is the growth of euphoria. If eu does well, it means
more and better quality contributions for us to utilize. Currently it's
very limited to a bunch of adhoc libraries, that don't even work half
the time, or don't have documentation, etc..
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
