OpenEuphoria

Re: Compiler status

• Posted by Ben Fosberg <BenFosberg at WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Jul 13, 2000
• 568 views

Robert Craig wrote:

> Ben Fosberg writes:
> > Is it being claimed here that the Win32 executable for the
> > interpreter includes the dos graphics library? If not,
> > those of us writing for Win32 aren't being "burdened" with
> > the library, are we?
>
> Only the DOS32 interpreter contains the WATCOM
> graphics library. That's why pixel-graphics
> library routines such as polygon(), ellipse(), pixel() etc.
> are currently only supported for DOS32. That's also *part*
> of the reason why ex is bigger than exu and exw.
> It would be nice to someday support these routines
> on Linux and WIN32, but it's not a really high priority
> at the moment.

Thanks for the clarification; that's what I thought, and therefore
whining about this support adding size to Win32/Linux programs is
baseless.

>
> > Despite the fact that we all keep saying "compiler,"
> > I believe the gizmo Rob described was a "translator."
> > You put in Euphoria and you get out C source,
> > which you then feed into a C compiler.
>
> A compiler is a translator from a source language to a lower-level
> target language.
>
> A C compiler translates the C language to machine language.
>
> The Euphoria compiler translates Euphoria into C.

That's a translator, not a compiler. You could also call it a
"pre-processor,' without complaint from me. I assume you're asserting
here that Euphoria is a higher level language than C, with which I
might agree. I disagree that a compiler produces a "lower level"
language - a compiler produces specifically "machine code."

>
> The techniques used are very similar to a normal compiler.

The "techniques" are not the issue; the product is the issue.

>
> I think it's fair to call it a compiler, but to avoid confusion
> I will frequently remind people that it translates to C and
> that you need a C compiler to complete the job.

I've never understood "fair;" if you call it a compiler when it's not,
then you'll confuse people. If you don't call it a compiler, you won't
have to keep reminding people that it doesn't compile, and you won't
have to deal with bogus issues like the size of the executables due to
support in your interpreter and translator for routines that, in fact,
aren't being compiled, and thus really don't add to the executables'
size.

In case you (or others) misread my tone, let me state for the record,
that as a _paying_ customer, I'm content with what you sold me, and
don't feel that having paid you what you asked for what you already
supplied entitles me to demand any further effort for my
interest/convenience. If you come up with something else I like at a
price I can accept, we'll be doing some more business; if you prefer
to work on something closer to your own heart, that's fine with me.
Unlike yourself, I have no interest in C, beyond having to grasp some
of it to navigate M$'s API, but I understand that lots of other people
do, and they have plenty to contribute to the "community."

Some free advice/encouragement, worth every penny:
 You have a reputation for being a hard-nosed guy, unresponsive to the
needs/desires of your market. Personally, I think you've been
over-reacting to the complaints and wasting too much time in this
newlist dealing with piss-ant complaints and questions, although I'd
acknowledge that a very small number of them are probably  legitimate.
To quote a very successful retailer, "you should always listen to your
customers, but you should never believe them."

Regard,
Ben Fosberg
High-Spirited Old Gasbag

>
>
> Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    http://www.RapidEuphoria.com