Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Igor Kachan wrote:
>
> 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.
If this list really has 500 members, 90% doesn't post. And I don't think
that most of them are just reading what others post. Most of them are
probably *inactive*. Anyway, where did you get that count from?
> There are about 30000 downloaders of PD Euphoria 2.3 and 2.4 on
> download.com.
50% didn't understand what it was or how to use it. 50% of those who did
understand what it was didn't like it. That leaves 7500. That's not much
for a programming language which has been around for over ten years,
even if everybody who downloaded it actually uses it.
> 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.
You're comparing euphoria to shit. Compare Euphoria with the usability of
c++, vb.net etc, and you'll a completely different picture. Euphoria needs
to *develop* to compete with those languages, and I don't mean 1 update/
year with a few new features and/or features moved from the complete
to the free edition.
> Do ever one person of this list know about my programs before 2001?
No, we don't, though I don't understand how it would make any difference
knowing about them.
> 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.
I do not care about the free version of euphoria. I own the complete
edition. The complete edition is what should be used when comparing.
*Startup microdelay*? Do you own a supercomputer?
> 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.
We don't want to teach him to program in Euphoria. We want to show him
what features should be adequate in Euphoria. Euphoria seriously needs
some features to be a language that more experienced programmers also
can use.
Here's a list of improvements in eu that would be needed, which
Patrick Barnes posted today:
>> How could limited options slow things down? I like how somebody else put
>> it... With Euphoria, I stop worrying about syntax and can concentrate on
>> the algorithm.
>
>Well, implement a program that uses threads.
>Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions within those plugins.
>Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
>Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
>Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
>many 3rd party libs.
> So, if you want to be constructive, you have all ways to be constructive.
We have been constructive all the time, but he just doesn't listen to us.
> 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.
Who said it is easy?
> > 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.
>
You do really just repeat what was told you by the documentation.
And you didn't comment what he said, you just added talk of no
importance. Why are most advanced users leaving euphoria?
/Lex
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
