OpenEuphoria

Re: The Euphorian Way

• Posted by jbrown105 at hotpop.com Jul 01, 2001
• 427 views

I merely said that the entire community should work together
and vote to make changes to the wrappings of Eu (i.e. Eu+).
For example, the community could decide which libraries
(Win32Lib, EDS, etc.) and which preprocessors (PP, Dot, etc.)
could be used to enhance Eu, and how they should be intergrated.
(The librarys really don't need intergration, but the preprocessors do.)

jbrown105

On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:41:29PM -0400, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> From: <gertie at ad-tek.net>
> 
> > On 1 Jul 2001, at 10:38, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
> > > From: Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
> 
> > 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?
> 
> My guess is, no demand. However, if you would like to try to
> sell your own, they have the source code up for sale:)
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> OOP, if required, needlessly obfuscates what would otherwise be
> clean code. If you're developing a GUI, it's perfect. For an
> accounting program, it's no big deal.
> 
> > > > 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
<snip>

> 
> 

Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
http://jbrown105.1avenue.com