OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Compilers Available Soon

• Posted by Pete Eberlein <xseal at HARBORSIDE.COM> Apr 02, 2000
• 438 views

On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:59:17 GMT, Ian Smith <whoisian at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>I'd like point this out: It doesn't make sense to make a compiler that
>really isn't a compiler but rather a CONVERTER to another language when the
>language that is being converted was developed to provide an alternative to
>C/C++ and other such languages.

Come now, most C compilers convert C into ASSEMBLY, which then gets
converted into machine code.  All compilers *are* translators.  There is
nothing wrong with taking a C compiler and building another language on top
of it.  There are many optimisers written for C programs that would greatly
benefit the host language.  I seem to remember (probably incorrectly) that
Python programs are translated into C before being compiled.

The recent versions of Peu partly support translating Euphoria to C as well.

>Second, i don't think people will pay 2000
>dollars U.S. for something that is a utilitie for a software package that
>costs 39 dolloars u.s. and comes with a utility to build EXE's and still
>keep speed. The only advantage is that this "U4IA++" this supports syntax
>for classes; Even that doesn't matter much because they're are many >
>Euphoria libraries that pretty much implement a full OOP system.(ie. Object
>Euphoria)

I agree that 2000 bucks is a bit steep for a programming language; even
Microsoft doesn't charge that much for their development tools.  (well maybe
if you add up the cost of every upgrade)

A built-in OOP system will most-likely have a speed advantage over any
emulated OOP interface coded in pure Euphoria.

>Lastly, the fact that your renaming the language and extending it by 2%
>doesn't make it right that your bastardizing and ripping off a language
>that was developed by 2 people over 3 years of hard work and relatively
>small profit.
>
>I'd like to think of this reply as stating the obivious.
>
>Again, I hope a lot of people read this so that they don't be become 2000
>dollars poorer.

At first I thought the compilers post was a day-late April Fools joke... but
if it really exists I would certainly enjoy trying it out.  Especially if it
supports Linux (and probably not a stretch to support BeOS as well)

Pete Eberlein