Re: Compiler status
>Ralf wrote:
>> Or just kick the annoying Watcom graphics library out of the
>> executable ...
>What's so annoying about it? It's pretty basic, it reflects its age,
>but it is quite fast and reliable, what else do you want?
The fact is nobody uses it. Not even you, for any fast graphical demo.
But it is half the size of the dos-interpreter.
Come on. I had more troubles with the watcom thingie than I ever had with
Neil. Neil simply worked for me and I was assuming it did everywhere, until
I unfortunately heard it didn't work for you on the NT.
Well, the point remains though, I am still for removing the library and
having graphics.e use asm.e etc and provide the graphical functions itself.
And it *is* inconsistent, to have all this basic interface support for Dos
and Dos alone. What is it ? Is Euphoria a minimal language or does it have
bells and whistles or is it just minimal on Win32 and Linux and lots of
bell's and whistles on Dos32 .. What's the policy ? What are the criteria
to add a certain library to the executable ? Does it really need to be done
in C and packed with every Euphoria program ?
>As usual, Ralf rambled on:
As usual, Jiri was unreasonably annoyed by the idea alone 
>> ... Find a way to incorporate Neil.e (renamed to graphics.e ? ) ...
>Don't. When Neil works, it works well. When it doesn't, it doesn't.
>For instance, it never worked with any NT machine I tried it on.
>What's more, last time I looked, it lacked essential primitives like
>line, ellipse, polygon, etc. No doubt it can be made more complete,
>but as it stands now, it's a desirable extension, but definitely not a
>suitable replacement.
Ok, I didn't know. I agree. Reliability is a must if you want it to replace
the graphics library.
Neil isn't the way (yet?) .. but I'm still for kicking the watcom lib out..
or kicking many more libs in.
I mean, it would make much more sence to add a platform independent GUI lib
.. than to add a graphical lib that only works on Dos32. The Dos32 platform
still remains the home of Euphoria, no matter how you put it. Euphoria
doesn't even include win32lib in the download. Dos32 is the only platform
for which a new user, who has got Euphoria from some shareware cdrom
etc.will experience. He won't have the patience to try to set up and
download the win32 thingie. If he doesn't like Dos32 .. he won't even notice
the fact that it should also run under windows. The year is 2000, may I
remind you, no body uses Dos anymore, other than Euphoria game and graphics
programmers. The number of people who use the Pc has increased enormously,
but most of those people have trouble enough using Windows, they can't do
Dos!
So, what is it going to be ? Euphoria as a minumal language .. with
libraries for graphics and interface, and mouse, etc. in source code form,
or is it going to have some basic bells'and'whistles on *all* platforms ?
I'm in for kicking out the watcom libs, and for adding some cross-platform
graphical interface library. I dunno which, I suggest some one asks David ..
he seen 'em all.
Commercially, I suspect the addition of such a library *is* the answer as
well. It increases the producticity of using Euphoria enormously. I mean,
the need to add such thing, is much higher, than to add some silly new
feature that will make our algorithms just a tad little more elegant.
Algorithms alone don't make programs.
Robert, I'm quite sure, you have considered, or are considering such areas,
what are your plans ? what is going to be the policy ? where is euphoria
heading ? the compiler is really cool and all, but was speed really the
issue, well i *am* wondering what the speed increase will be for the win32
programs .... it is there where a better average of statements per sec, will
have a great impact. (and also where it is needed most)
Do you intend to move Euphoria futher into the Win32 platform ? Say,
installation, editor, inclusing of win32lib .. what, what is it, you're
gonna do ?
Ralf N.
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
