Re: EUPHORIA SUCKS and I have to pay for it.
Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:11:34 -0800, henri <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
...
> > VB or EUPHORIA or other langauges do the same thing, I hoped that EUPHORIA
> > would answer my exceptations.
> > what we need is:
> > 1. simple interface (mostly visual) (not command lines.....)
> > 2. access to a database (with above the 4gb limitation)
> > 3. debugger
> > 4. and distribution (hopefully smart enough not to replace existing system
> > file)
> >
>
> Henri, you've hit the nail on the head, these are all problems
> (although I'm not so sure about the issue with databases) with the
> distributed Euphoria package. (What you get when you download
> euphoria) The standard euphoria package is very dated, and is missing
> many of the things that every programmer uses. (win32lib, a decent
> editor, useful file associations)
An IDE, along with the interface to Windows, should be supplied by
RDS. It's too much to expect people to do all that work in their spare
time, then contribute it (and support it) for free.
If RDS had spent the past 18 months creating their own, supported Windows
stuff instead of the dubious 'improvements' made in 2.5, they might have
a chance in the marketplace. As it stands, however, I can get Visual Basic,
Delphi, or Visual C++ for less than $100, and they all come with
all the necessary stuff to write Windows programs. So do a number of
other languages (many of them free).
Perhaps the best thing that could happen to Euphoria now is for Derek,
Judith, Bernie, et al to withdraw their libraries from circulation. Let Rob
do everything his way and see how things work out.
A drastic step? Not really - existing users already have the libraries
they need, so they wouldn't be inconvenienced. Newcomers (if there are
any) wouldn't be confused about what to download and would have fewer
complaints about incompatible libraries. The maintainers of those libraries
would get a well-deserved vacation.
Irv
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
