OpenEuphoria

RE: Euphoria.NET

• Posted by Philip Deets <philip1987 at hotmail.com> Feb 19, 2004
• 702 views

I use Windows XP, and as soon as Longhorn comes out, I'm getting it.  If 
eu will not support Longhorn, then I guess I'll have to go with C#.

I don't know anyone in real life that uses anything other than Windows, 
and most use XP.  Maybe it's just my area, I don't know.  But shouldn't 
the developer target the platform the majority of the end-users have?

Phil

Daniel Kluss wrote:
> 
> 
> Well in that case the euphoria community should just boycot windows, 
> until 
> they meet our demands of utter compatability without any work on our 
> part, 
> besides who even uses windows now days anyways?
> Daniel
> 
> 
> >From: Philip Deets <philip1987 at hotmail.com>
> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> >To: EUforum at topica.com
> >Subject: RE: Euphoria.NET
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:12 +0000
> >
> >
> >I asked a similar question in another place, and I got this response.
> >
> >"Microsoft says that Win32 will remain avaliable and largely unchanged
> >except for minimal support for WinFS but Avalon(2D/3D Graphics,
> >Movies/Audio Layer) will only be avaliable in Managed Code(.Net).
> >Indigo(P2P, Web Services, Generally Networking/Internet stuff) is also
> >primarily avaliable for .Net but I think it's also compatible with COM.
> >
> >All the really good(And new) features in Longhorn are made IN .Net for
> >.Net, third party development software may be compatible if the makers
> >write a version of their language using .Net."
> >
> >What do you think?  I would want to use Avalon, but it looks like I
> >can't with euphoria unless eu is changed.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >Derek Parnell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hayden McKay [mailto:hmck1 at dodo.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:56 AM
> > > > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Euphoria.NET
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Win32lib.ew Will be the only library to be needing an upgrade
> > > > to support
> > > > Longhorn.
> > > > EU will run fine without having to be ported to Longhorn.
> > > >
> > > > We will only need the extra Longhorn stuff wrapped into win32lib.ew.
> > >
> > > This is my understanding too. The low-level Windows API, which win32lib
> > > is
> > > using, will still be available in Longhorn. The extra goodies will be
> > > available in new DLL files and new API routines.
> > >
> > > Actually, there have already been main new Windows facilities available
> > > since XP arrived that have not been built-into win32lib (yet).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Derek
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Philip Deets" 
> > > >
> > > > > I am concerned with euphoria's compatibility with Windows
> >Longhorn's new
> > > > > features.  Windows Longhorn will support all previous win32
> >programs, so
> > > > > eu will still work, but I think to access the new features,
> >a program
> > > > > must use the Longhorn API.  The Longhorn API will be very
> >similar to the
> > > > > current .NET .  Will euphoria be able to use features
> >intended for use
> > > > > by managed languages, such as C#?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe a new euphoria platform will be necessary.  Perhaps
> >there could be
> > > > > Linux & FreeBSD eu, Win32 and DOS eu, and Longhorn eu.  If
> >this extra
> > > > > platform issue could be avoided that would be great.  I'll
> >leave this
> > > > > issue with those who are more knowledgable than I in these areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just Concerned,
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >