OpenEuphoria

Re: The Euphorian Way

• Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net Jul 01, 2001
• 422 views

On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
> 
> 
> > How is this different to people writting include libraries now?
> > The actual Euphoria libraries are the things that make Euphoria
> > what it is. Where would Euphoria be without Win32Lib and the
> > other half dozen most popular libraries?
> 
> Good point. Without the work of Dave Cuny, Judith Evans,
>  and many others, my guess is Euphoria would still be a
> DOS-only language.
> Writing a programming language is no longer something which
> can be done by one or two people. Send your thankews to
> Bill Gates for that.

In terms of working programs, dos is fine, or *better* than windows. Problem is,
there
is little userbase for it anymore, at least where the money is. And i admit
multitasking
those leftover cpu cycles is nice. DRdos was supposed to provide us multitasking
and
a nice gui,,,, what happened?
 
> > I agree Euphoria is a nice language but it still lacks a fair bit
> > with regard to connecting with other technologies.  A lot of
> > libraries and tools have been developed but most are half done,
> > badly  documented and largely untested.
> 
> Correct, but why? And what's the solution?

Incentive?

> > OOP support would need to be added before Euphoria gained any
> > mainstream support and more "commercial quality" libraries are
> > required. This largely would require the current libraries to be
> > brushed up and a few more added. (A huge amount of work by the > way)
> .
> I don't think OOP is a necessity. Programmers have found that it's
> not the miracle cure it was hyped to be, and have rightly demoted
> it to the status of 'just another tool' to be used when appropriate.
> Of course, the argument could be made that 'commercial quality
> libraries' would be easier to create if we had standard OOP features.
> I wouldn't disagree.

I don't like OOP. 
 
> > Others have been critical of my "commercialism" comments in the
> > past but persoanlly I see no other way that Euphoria could match
> > any of the commercial or popular open source alternatives.  Note
> > that the popular open source languages are backed commercially!
> 
> The more popular ones are supported quite well, look at O'Riley,
> for example. He's made a bundle selling books about those languages.
> And you can buy online or phone support for most mainstream free languages,
> like perl, python. If there are enough people using a language, the support
> will be there. The question is, how do you get enough people using the
> language?

Make it easier to use? For instance, in mirc, Icon, and Dialog, if you want a
Windows
window to pop up and display something, it's a one-word command, like puts() is.
You
can get fancier if you want. Same with networking, sending an email in Rebol
takes
one line of code. Having all those things from the Turbo Pascal suite of tools
that i
used in dos some 8 yrs ago would be nice too.

Kat