Re: Thanks and goodbye!
See you later, I hope.
I tried pushing the "Programmer is Important" line too. My message is that a
programming language's MAIN purpose is to make programming easier for people
to do. By easier I include faster and harder-to-make-mistakes. This also
seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
My new realization is that Euphoria as a language is not ex.exe, as that is
only one possible implementation of the use of the language. I hope that
somebody can create a different implementation that has nothing to do with
Robert, and that they are willing to increase its usability for programmers.
Maybe when I retire I'll have a decent go myself.
------
Derek.
----- Original Message -----
From: <doc at edgetap.net>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Thanks and goodbye!
>
> First, thanks to those of you replied to my "Fresh Perspective" post,
> whether you agreed with me or not. Unfortunately the thread got
> highjacked so quickly that I fear the point of putting the programmer
> before the language was probably lost. A few parting shots...
>
> 1) If the language was sufficient then most of the posts here would be
> of the type "Look at my latest application!" rather than the "I've got a
> way around that!" variety.
>
> 2) Regarding the recent and oh so boring language comparisons and
> especially in terms of speed: not once have I seen mentioned
> "speed-of-coding" which is far more important to real-life when you
> either just need to prove a concept or, more likely, have to implement a
> solution to a deadline. Again the programmer comes last, pity.
>
> 3) Karl (you star!) makes the heroic effort to provide some features
> which people have been requesting and for his effort, and probably to
> the constenation of others, gets as thanks... "These features are not
> expected to become part of Euphoria". There's encouragement for
> user-base... not!
>
> 4) Looking at the release history, Eu2.2 was released January 14, 2000
> and over two years later comes 2.3. Back to the speed issue again but
> not of the interpreter itself, rather the responsiveness of Rapid
> Euphoria to it's user-base. There is no chicken-and-egg problem here
> regarding the popularity of Eu. It's simply a case of not having made
> the evolutionary leap into the mindset that puts the programmer before
> the language. Worse still it is mainly about relatively simple requests
> like GoTo, Select Case, DLL calling convention, etc, that are causing
> this problem (more below).
>
> 5) From what I can tell Rob *is* Rapid Euphoria so it begs the question
> if Rob wrote it for his own use and, possibly for financial reasons,
> only reluctantly offer's it to the rest of us. I think there is some
> truth in this considering the lack of enthusiasm to respond to repeated
> requests for features-of-convenience. I apologise in advance if I am
> completely off the mark here but that's the impression I and no doubt
> others get. If there is any truth in it then Rob first needs to decide
> exactly who he is serving, himself or his customers, and if the latter
> then ditch his principles a little to better accommodate users wishes.
>
> 6) I denounce all arguments against new features based on the impact
> they will have on the interpreters speed. In some cases I simply don't
> believe there has to be any impact at all but more specifically if speed
> was a real issue you simply would not be using Euphoria to begin with.
> Neither do I believe that they would necessarily "bloat" the
> interpreters size, contrary to the extremist arguments put forward
> elsewhere.
>
> 7) I don't consider myself unique in my requirements such that if I can
> arrive at the conclusion that Eu is good but needs a) more features of
> convenience and b) a more customer oriented attitude from RE, then it's
> a certainty that 1000's of others have also come to the same conclusion.
> I do wonder how many could be bothered to stop and comment on their
> conclusions though, as one brief glance at some of the topics under
> discussion, as intelligent as some them are, would be enough to put
> people off.
>
> 8) This is a question of clarification: having added your own features
> to the interpreter can or can't they be compiled? Recent posts suggest
> not.
>
> In closing ("finally!" I hear you cry 
, the attraction of Euphoria to
> me was a single package in which I could do advanced prototyping, low
> level programming if need be, quick turn-around production releases and
> then, only if required, conversion to C for the odd cases where speed
> really is critical. Why am I not buying it then? Well, if you don't know
> then you haven't read this and the original post properly, but ok I'll
> point it out one more time, just for you: IT'S THE PROGRAMMERS THAT
> COUNT! There, that clear enough for you?
>
> OK, I lied, one final point... Rob, you should try harder to accommodate
> user's wishes if for no other reason than to ensure you keep the
> interest of THE most intelligent bunch of people I have come across in a
> long long time. That's it, farewell.
>
> PS: I nearly forgot... Rob, if you change your mind/approach, email me,
> there'll be a cheque waiting to show I'm not all mouth.
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
