OpenEuphoria

RE: The fate of Euphoria

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Nov 06, 2004
• 480 views

Andy Serpa wrote:

<SNIP> 

> Not true.  I haven't been a hard-ass about it, but I've made lots of 
> suggestions.  Here would be my favorites:
> 
> -- variable_id() (to look up & and to assign) -- this would increase the 
> power of Eu greatly
> 
> -- conditional operator
> 
> -- let's get all the standard functions included in the standard 
> libraries that come with Eu: abs(), etc.
> 
> -- exit(n) -- break out of nested loops
> 
> -- block comments
> 
> -- crash/cleanup routines -- looks like he is handling that
> 
> -- routine_ids for built-ins -- v2.5?
> 
> -- the ability to use a type to ALTER the value assigned to something
> 
> -- more consistent / proper use of types when translating -- he improved 
> this by having types with side-effects be included in translated 
> programs but for my money a translated program should operate the same 
> as interpreted 100% of the time
> 
> -- much better documentation for newbies -- Euphoria is touted as a good 
> "first" language but you need to have knowledge of low-level details to 
> avoid common mistakes (for instance, the impreciseness of floating-point 
> variables)
> 
> -- a negative suggestion -- I *do not* want to see GOTO
> 
> -- the "import" style of local including that has been much discussed 
> lately, or some better solution to namespace issues when included a file 
> that includes other files with globals in them


Thank you Andy for reiterating your suggestions.
I agree with most all of those suggestions and I'm also tired of 
reiterating them.

I think the largest problem with the Euphoria product is the lack of 
organization. Our ability to compile meaningful requests lists, that 
others can easily collaborate with. And a detailed description of RDS's 
philosophies, plans, considerations and responses to denied requests 
would be a good start.

Then we wouldn't have to keep reiterating everything, and could avoid 
alot of this contraversy.

I cannot understand why RDS neglects the other aspects of it's Euphoria 
product. The organization of it's community is far more important than 
any unconsulted implementations that RDS might dream up.

I agree with the changes being made for 2.5, not because it allows me to 
implement my own suggestions, but because it allows me to make even MORE 
radical changes, that I would never expect RDS to make.

But I see it as a way for Rob to cop out on making any changes himself. 
It gives him an excuse to say that we can all just make our own changes.

Unfortunately, that is NOT to anyone's benefit really. A great majority 
of the suggestions being made are quite unamimous. Some things can only 
be implemented in an official version.

I suspect that Rob refrains from creating such organization, because it 
would make all of these issues come to surface, and he would have no 
avenue of escape. He's making a business decision, to compensate for his 
philosophies, and unwillingness to comply.

By keeping us in the dark, we can't disagree until it's too late. And we 
can't collaborate to agree.

These types of things are why I created the empire website.
Hopefully it will evolve into a culmination of real insight into the 
value of Euphoria, and it's limitations.

It's not a wonder people think it's the greatest thing since apple pie. 
Only after spending years learning it, and you begin to push it's 
boundaries, will you discover Euphoria's ugliness. 

RDS does a good job of covering up, instead of facing the problems.


<SNIP>


Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy