OpenEuphoria

RE: A Euphoria DLL?

• Posted by bensler at mail.com Mar 01, 2002
• 499 views

If you want to compile DLL's, you have to buy the translator. Registered 
Euphoria is cheap. It's worth having to buy the translator. That's a big 
selling feature of the translator. If Rob were to implement DLL 
compilation directly into EU, I'd suggest to him that he distibute it as 
a separately purchasable extension to the registered version. Rob 
already practically gives away his product. I wouldn't hesitate to spend 
an extra $20 (It's gotta be worth less than EU2C) to be able to compile 
DLL's without the hassles.

Chris

jordah ferguson wrote:
> Jonas, is right, why do we have to rely on another language to compile 
> or make dlls. i mean the process is long and tiring why can't we just 
> simply use euphoria, this brings us back to what chris recently 
> said"Euphoria has the potential to be the best language but.....not lots 
> 
> is being done to it". Sorry rob but i agree with chris on that one
> 
> Jonas  Temple wrote:
> > Andy,
> > 
> > It doesn't make sense in that I really don't want to have to fight with 
> > a C compiler to get my Euphoria code into a .dll.  I certainly could do 
> > that (I have Borland C++ 5.something floating around on my hard drive 
> > somewhere) but it would be nice to not have to use the compiler.
> > 
> > Jonas
> > Andy Serpa wrote:
> > > 
> > > Jonas  Temple wrote:
> > > > Since everyone has been talking about wish lists for V2.4, I thought I 
> > > > would throw my 2 cents in.
> > > > 
> > > > What I would like to see is the ability to create a .dll with the 
> > > > binder.  I know that I can get the translator and then compile to make a
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > .dll but that doesn't make any sense to me.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Can you elaborate on just what doesn't make sense to you?  Do you mean 
> > > that literally, or you just don't want to do it that way for some 
> > > reason?
> > > 
> > >