Re: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
- Posted by encephalon1 at msn.com
Feb 12, 2002
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C1B3F3.398B9B80
I don't believe he's claiming the Eu is a bad product, just that it doesn't have
the level of support to justify writing a book about it (in the publishers eyes).
I agree with him; I think more use would come of writing software which
showcases the abilities of Euphoria than writing a book that will go unpublished,
at least on paper. In my experience, people usually learn the basics of a
language before they buy a book about it. I think the documentation that comes
with the iterpreter, as well as this forum, is quite enough information and
support until there are more Eu programmers.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Smith
Subject: RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh perspective?)
Irv Mullins wrote:
> Euphoria has had nearly as much time as Python to develop a following.
> It hasn't. Euler's request was for a book about Euphoria, and I can't
> see
> any publisher taking a chance on there being a market for a Euphoria
> book,
> when there are so many much more popular languages out there to write
> about.
> > I'm guessing Python didn't have all those starting out in 1990, and look
> > where it is today. Sure, EUPHORIA was released in 1993, but it doesn't
> > have the "backing" that Python has.
>
> Python was started by one guy, just like Euphoria.
> As far as I know, no money was spent to promote it.
> If it now has more "backing" than Euphoria, why is that?
> Why does O'Reilly publish books about Python?
> Why do people pay for seminars and training classes in Python?
>
> Apparently because a fairly large number of people find Python useful.
>
> > Regardless, EUPHORIA is one of the best work horses out there.
>
> Equally apparently, a much smaller number must find Euphoria useful,
> otherwise we'd have the seminars and books as well.
There are two main reasons why Python is hugely successful and Euphoria
is not:
* Python is open source – although one guy is primarily responsible
many people do input into the language design and implementation.
The fact that it’s open source also develops a stronger feeling of
community and an increased level of participation. I’m not asking
Rob to open source Euphoria but if he did it would bring literally
hundreds of users aboard, of which maybe a dozen or so would
create/improve current libraries, produce more software, write
tutorials and books etc etc. Python has been lucky in the fact that
it has had commercial backing from the vert start. Python started
to help perform some business or educational task at a large
institution. The institution was generous enough to let the author
open source the project. Companies pay money for the author to
further develop the product. I can’t see any company doing this for
Euphoria. At least not in the short to medium term.
* Python is Object Oriented. It has a rich set of language features
and native data structures that make using Python for large multi
developer development easier. A lot of the little arguments that go
on here in the Euphoria world just aren’t issues in the Python world.
In Euphoria's defence it is small, fast and slim. Three words that
have never been mentioned about Python.
In the end if your not happy with Euphoria you can either help
make it better or go somewhere else. Everyone has a choice.
Ray Smith
http://www.geocities.com/ray_223
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C1B3F3.398B9B80
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I
don't believe he's claiming the Eu is a bad product, just that it doesn't have
the level of support to justify writing a book about it (in the publishers
eyes). I agree with him; I think more use would come of writing software
which showcases the abilities of Euphoria than writing a book that will go
unpublished, at least on paper. In my experience, people usually learn the
basics of a language before they buy a book about it. I think the
documentation that comes with the iterpreter, as well as this forum, is quite
enough information and support until there are more Eu programmers.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt
Arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT:
10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Ray Smith</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt
Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:22 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT:
10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> EUforum</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt
Arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Eu 'Textbook' Prospects (Was: RE: GOTO - A fresh
perspective?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>============ The Euphoria Mailing List
============<BR><BR><BR>Irv Mullins wrote:<BR><BR>> Euphoria has had nearly as
much time as Python to develop a following.<BR>> It hasn't. Euler's
request was for a book about Euphoria, and I can't<BR>> see<BR>> any
publisher taking a chance on there being a market for a Euphoria<BR>>
book,<BR>> when there are so many much more popular languages out there to
write<BR>> about.<BR><BR>> > I'm guessing Python didn't have all those
starting out in 1990, and look<BR>> > where it is today. Sure, EUPHORIA was
released in 1993, but it doesn't<BR>> > have the "backing" that Python
has.<BR>><BR>> Python was started by one guy, just like Euphoria.<BR>>
As f> ar as I know, no money was spent to promote it.<BR>> If it now has more
"backing" than Euphoria, why is that?<BR>> Why does O'Reilly publish books
about Python?<BR>> Why do people pay for seminars and training classes in
Python?<BR>><BR>> Apparently because a fairly large number of people find
Python useful.<BR>><BR>> > Regardless, EUPHORIA is one of the best work
horses out there.<BR>><BR>> Equally apparently, a much smaller number must
find Euphoria useful,<BR>> otherwise we'd have the seminars and books as
well.<BR><BR>There are two main reasons why Python is hugely successful and
Euphoria<BR>is not:<BR><BR>* Python is open source – although one guy is
primarily responsible<BR>many people do input into the language design and
implementation.<BR>The fact that it’s open source also develops a stronger
feeling of<BR>community and an increased level of participation. I’m not
asking<BR>Rob to open source Euphoria but if he did it would bring
literally<BR>hundreds of users aboard, of which maybe a dozen or so
would<BR>create/improve current libraries, produce more software,
write<BR>tutorials and books etc etc. Python has been lucky in the fact
that<BR>it has had commercial backing from the vert start. Python
started<BR>to help perform some business or educational task at a
large<BR>institution. The institution was generous enough to let the
author<BR>open source the project. Companies pay money for the author
to<BR>further develop the product. I can’t see any company doing this
for<BR>Euphoria. At least not in the short to medium term.<BR><BR>* Python
is Object Oriented. It has a rich set of language features<BR>and native
data structures that make using Python for large multi<BR>developer development
easier. A lot of the little arguments that go<BR>on here in the Euphoria
world just aren’t issues in the Python world.<BR><BR>In Euphoria's defence it
is small, fast and slim.
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C1B3F3.398B9B80--
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
