OpenEuphoria

Re: Future of Euphoria

• Posted by rforno at tutopia.com May 27, 2002
• 564 views

So, it seems the main problem is not that there are not good tools in EU,
but that them do not come with the basic official distribution.
Personally, for me the inadequacies of the Ed editor were not important; in
a few minutes I was comfortable with it. And the main reason why I use EU is
its ease of programming and debugging. Even though, I think that exactly the
debugging is the main aspect to be improved, especially the trace()
facility: the variables to be shown should be specified only by the user,
not a mix of user and interpreter; expressions should be allowed; even
manually modifying variables during trace, writing new functions, modifying
the ones not being pending or executing at the moment, and saving the status
of the program to restart it later just in case it crashes after executing a
few more sentences.
----- Original Message -----
From: <dm31 at uow.edu.au>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Future of Euphoria



Too True. I had the same feelings when I started using Euphoria. In
fact, I did give Euphoria up, but tried again several weeks later
after been annoyed that I couldn't use the Sound Card in QB. I stayed
using Euphoria BECAUSE I found David Cuny's Dos editor, and the Sound
Blaster library.

Regards,
Dan McGrath

>I agree: Good windows editor written in Euphoria so users can
>customize it
>which would come with official Eu package would be very good for
>Euphoria's
>future. Many new people give up because of that dos editor. After
>all editor
>is the first thing you start up when you start learning new language.
>
>When I first got Euphoria I had a feeling that I will delete it in a
>few
>days (I don't remember why exactly), but after seeing that SB.EX
>demo I
>tried it a little more. I meant I would use it to write DOS graphics
>demos
>mainly with it.