Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:34:28 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > i don't think it's what we can do i think it's what rob can do, i know
> > this may sound stupid but if you consider that he looks at it from a
> > marketing perspective then his intention would prolly be to go for as
> > many markets as possible, newbies, intermediate and advanced :)
>
> Exactly!
>
> So he should be noticing that these advanced users are leaving, and
> try and address the issues.
Are you sure they are leaving Euphoria itself, but not this list only?
I think, there is some latent using of Euphoria now, say, for competition
at work or such.
This list is about 500 members, some of them do not talking about any
things at all.
There are about 30000 downloaders of PD Euphoria 2.3 and 2.4 on
download.com.
I had written some custom program on 35000 or so Euphoria operators in v2.1
PD Euphoria with 300 operators limit(!!!). That program was translated
by hands from QB4.5 and had many powerful Euphoria improvements,
impossible in QB4.5, PDS7.1. VB1.
It was not a Hobby program.
It was just impossible on MS professional expensive products.
MS products have nothing to do on Linux, not only on DOS32.
Do ever one person of this list know about my programs before 2001?
Now new v.2.5 PD has NO limitations at all, and just sturtup microdelay
for the compiled by the best Open Watcom C compiler Euphoria program.
But this list has some new members now, who wants to teach RDS
and Rob Craig how to program Euphoria itself.
Ok, what a problem, teach, download PD Source Code and teach.
Rob is ready listen to you about *you concrete code*.
Do not want to teach?
Ok, learn how to make the World famous things.
So, if you want to be constructive, you have all ways to be constructive.
But if you are waiting that programming itself is simple thing,
this is your mistake, sorry.
Programming itself never was and is not and never will be simple.
Euphoria programming language is just one of the simplest among
other programing languages. But more powerful than most of them.
> Funny thing is though, that most of these advanced users have already
> paid for the language before finding out it's shortcomings, so I'm not
> sure that it hurts his bottom line any to ignore them.
Nothing strange or funny, I think.
If you wanted just $-feature, but know now that there is some extremly
powerful
Euphoria IL-engine too, you want this engine too and for free.
Euphoria is for End Users, who wants a simple, robust and powerful
language.
And Euphoria is a simple, robust and powerful language.
Shoot me boys, it is truth.
And do not mix and confuse market questions with programming questions.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
