Re: Is Euphoria a Hobby language?
Alexander Toresson wrote:
>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?
>From EU 2.5 docs. You can check it on Topica.
I just know it is a real count.
Pre-Topica listserver sent this count about each your post.
Those days, it was 350..400 or so members.
Then Chris Bensler found this Topica for us and went away.
Now he makes noise here again about his market projects
and dreams.
BTW, Rob, it was the very useful feature of old good listserver.
>> 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.
>From where is this your count?
I do not think 50% of downloaders may be so silly to download
all they see from Internet.
One or two of 30000, maybe, I just do not know.
>50% of those who did understand what it was didn't like it.
>From where is this your count?
I do not think 50% of 30000 .. 29999 .. 29998 programmers may
be so silly to can not run setup program and read readme.doc
file.
My count is 30000 .. 29998 downloaders do understand what
Euphoria is.
>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.
My count is about 30000 just from download.com on 2.3 and 2.4 versions.
It is based on download.com data. And I think, all dowloaders are
the clever boys/girls/old guys.
Plus official 2.2, 2.1, 2.0, 1.5a, 1.5, 1.4b, 1.4a, 1.4, 1.3, 1.2b,
1.2a, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0.
Plus alpha/beta versions on 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
My count is about 20 versions of Euphoria programming language.
2.5 alpha is 21-st.
Plus clons - Karl's, Matt's, ruphoria, nuphoria.
BTW, if someone has 1.5, 1.4a, 1.3b, 1.2a, 1.2 let me know please,
I'd like to get them.
>> 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.
QuickBasic 4.5 never was, is not and never will be "shit", as you say.
It is just the best Basic programming language for DOS.
It costs $100 or so.
PDS7.1 is stands for Professional Development System 7.1,
QuickBasic 7.1, so to say. Visual Basic 1 is single VB for
DOS platform, based on PDS7.1 system.
All these products are good, professional, but expensive.
Plus MS doesn't support them for a while.
Plus they are monoplatform.
No one programming language is "shit", remember, please.
There are poorly experienced programmers in the World, yes.
>Compare Euphoria with the usability of
>c++, vb.net etc, and you'll a completely different picture.
MS c++ and vb.net can not ever compete with Euphoria,
they are monoplatform.
Another (lower) class of programming languages.
Then, all questions about usability are the market/bazaar
questions. These questions have nothing to do about real
quality of a programming language.
Catch market/bazaar and you'll be the "best".
Take for example PowerBASIC, it is much better than VB.
But PowerBASIC's mailing list's archive - about 100000
messages. Euphoria's list - about 65000.
But PowerBASIC came from TurboBasic, i.e. from 1985 or so.
>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.
Can you even calculate, Lex? 
My count is 21 versios on 11 years, from 1 to 4 platforms,
from pure interpreted DOS to compiled with 7 free compilers
DOS32, WIN32, Linux, FreeBSD --> just Rob and Junko.
BTW, not too bad, Rob and Junko, many thanks
from Russian boys & girls & old guys!
Then, you wanted 2.4 CE? Yes?
Any one can get 2.4 CE main features for free now.
It is the very good progress, I think.
Another thing, our appetite grows in front of a rich table.
I do see, some of this list members have the very good appetite.
>> 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.
Sorry, just some my little experience I can provide to list.
Nothing more, sorry, please.
>> 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.
So what? I care about free versions of Euphoria for my friends and me.
There was, is and will be nothing to do in Euphoria without PD versions.
>The complete edition is what should be used when comparing.
There is no complete edition at all in 2.5.
There are some additional strongly and highly professional
RDS products - safe encripted binder, C source code etc.
We have nothing to compare at all.
Extremely compact and powerfull PD Euphoria IL-engine has
no analogs in the World now, as far as I can see.
>*Startup microdelay*? Do you own a supercomputer?
No, my main PC is P166MMX, 64M RAM, same as Don Cole's one,
and I have P4 1.8GHz 256M RAM too, same as Rob's one,
then two P200 machines plus 386 25MHz 8M RAM mainframe
for testing my programs.
Startup microdelay - it is the delay before start
of the translated to C and compiled with C compiler
Euphoria program. PD translator sets this microdelay up,
it is not a parsing time.
You can not avoid parsing when you develop 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.
>We don't want to teach him to program in Euphoria.
Why not? Who "we"?
> We want to show him what features should be adequate in Euphoria.
Again, who "we"?
So, you want to teach him how to program *Euphoria itself* ?
See, please, above my text about *Euphoria itself*.
Not *in Euphoria*, but *Euphoria itself*, yes ?
Ok, no problem, set up v2.5, see SOURCE folder, use, teach, learn.
>Euphoria seriously needs some features to be a language that
>more experienced programmers also can use.
The more experienced programmer will use Windows API,
Linux system calls, DOS interrupts, assembly blocks,
etc etc etc using existent Euphoria features.
>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.
There is Euphoria game, Language War, it comes with
threads from EU 1.0.
Now it is 10 or so threads (parallel tasks).
No one uses the ready Euphoria threads technique, why?
I asked this questions years ago. No answer.
Let us see your concrete task for these threads.
Why no one asks for fibres?
>>>Or can load plugins dynamically, and call functions
>>>within those plugins.
See Judith's question about plugins to this list
and list's answers.
>>>Or break out of multiple levels of loop without slowdown.
How many levels and what is critical slowdown ?
>>>Or make sure a large data array doesn't contain any illegal values.
Just try to assign illegal values to Euphoria sequence
and see your results. And I'd like to see your face in
front of your monitor.
>>>Or manage the namespaces properly for a large project that includes
>>>many 3rd party libs.
What is that large project and where are these 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.
Who "we", again? Chris Bensler and you?
>> 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?
Sometime someone a new boy/girl *waits* for an easy/peasy programming
here, but do not know how to just restart his/her puter.
New puters have no the Reset button -- big progress in front of
our faces.
>>> 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.
Ok, ok, but first of all try to find my words in documentation,
and then say these your things, if you'll find my words there.
>And you didn't comment what he said, you just added talk of no
>importance. Why are most advanced users leaving euphoria?
Who says most advanced users are leaving Euphoria?
I see some of list members are going away *from this list*
and handover some popular libs to other supporters.
All I can say - Good Luck and happy to all them!
Some of them say that list is too noisy about some
rubbish whithout relation to real Euphoria quality now.
I agreed, list is too noisy now.
It is all I see.
And I just have nothing to comment about "poor" Euphoria
and "poor" most advanced users, sorry.
I never see even one poor Euphoria user.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
