Re: What's wrong with Euphoria??? Newbie perspective...
EU-NOW wrote:
> EU-NOW: My comments are below:
Please learn to quote properly:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Thanks in advance.
> <snip>
>
>> More things to think about:
>>
>> . You tell people that you learned about this great new programming
>> language called Euphoria, but they usually go "What???, Is that like
>> Crack???".
>
> If people don't use a language just because of its name, then they are
> obviouslaly not really interested in it anyway.
>
> EU-NOW: You are confusing some different concepts here.
Probably because the stuff that you wrote did confuse me.
> It not that
> people don=92t use Euphoria because of it=92s name, the issue is that
> people do not know about Euphoria, have never programmed in Euphoria,
> and since they do NOT know anybody that has used it than they are very
> distrusting of it.
So you are complaining that not everyone on this planet knows Euphoria?
And what has that got to do with Crack? Are you actually surprised when
I am confused by your words?
>> . You then proceed to, wishfully, give them some programs that you
>> created in Euphoria or direct them to this website. But, you then
>> often get, "So what's different about using Euphoria in comparison to
>> VBScript, Perl, Python, Object Pascal, AutoIt, AutoHotKey, etc...??"
>> Of course an Euphoria supporter says the pretty and smart syntax.
>
> Besides other things ...
>
>> But then you mention its PAYWARE and then the other guys are like...
>> "Hey man, AutoIT, AutoHotKey, all kinds of version of Pascal, Basic,
>> Perl, Python, etc... is FREE. Free, dude, free!!!"
>
> My apartment, my car, my bread and coffee is payware, too.
> I also like free stuff, but several people claim to get anything and
> everything for free. That is not realistic.
> BTW: The main part of Euphoria *is* free.
>
> EU-NOW:
>
> You are misunderstanding the point and overlooking the issue of the
> Binder-
>
> If you create a =93free=94 program in Euphoria than you have to run it
> with other Euphoria components, UNLESS you bind the program or use the
> Euphoria to C translator, compile with a freeware C/C++ compiler, and
> create and .exe/executable. The .exe/executable is what you give to
> your friends and say, =93Hey, I made this with Euphoria.=94 Hopeful
> response: =94What, this great program was made in Euphoria? Wow, maybe I
> should learn that programming language so I can make apps like these.=94
That's what I did after I buyed the binder and the translator. You see
it works also when the binder and translator is not free. For me it's
quite normal when I have to pay for a good product. I am also payed for
my work.
<snip>
> You should look at Euphoria from the perspective of its
> competition. Those scripting and programming language that are in
> =93competition=94 and/or being used INSTEAD of Euphoria are often FREE.
What are the free general purpose programming languages that I can use
instead of Euphoria? For instance, I want to build fast 32-bit DLLs for
Windows.
> If you are a company and your competition is giving out discounts,
> free turkey, etc=85 with their product than your sales and market share
> are usually going to suffer. The only way they don=92t usually suffer
> is that your product=92s QUALITY is so superior to its competition that
> it does not matter (like a BMW to a Yugo). Obviously, Euphoria is
> being =93undercut=94 by its free competition and it is arguably NOT
> technical superior enough or is part of a quality package that can
> overcome this.
Maybe, I don't know. It's RDS' product, and it's their and only their
decision how much discounts they want to give.
> Another part of this goes back to RDS strategy-
>
> 1. RDS is arguably USING FREEWARE apps created by others for
> NON-profit, to SELL its products. The most prominent thing you see on
> the site is the freeware apps. This can be OK, if we are talking
> about RDS putting out a quality package and the freeware is
> supplementing it. In Actually, it looks more like the freeware is
> providing the main role of support to any of RDS=92s products. The main
> reason may will want to use Euphoria, besides is very good language
> syntax, is the FREEWARE. So, =93what=94 is supporting =93what=94, in ter=
ms of
> freeware versus payware, looks backwards=85
And what exactly is here the problem in your opinion?
> 2. The other issue is ADDING VALUE to a =93QUALITY=94 product. The
> Binder is not adding as much value at this point, now that you have
> the Euphoria to C translator.
Hm? Above you wrote, how important the binder is in your opinion, and
now it is not adding much value?
> RDS products are starting to look like
> =93GOTCHAs=94. A =93gotcha=94 is often considered something a company se=
lls
> you after they tricked you into using their product or something that
> is essential to using a company=92s product. A company selling a
> =93gotcha=94 is OK with many consumers when it is clearly adding VALUE.
> Making users pay for the Binder in my opinion is actually hurting
> Euphoria from catching on. It is also setting RDS up to be CLONED.
> Obviously, those that like the Euphoria language and can program are
> going to be saying, =93Why in the HELL am I paying for the Binder???=94
IIRC, you are the first one on this list who says so.
> =93Why am I paying for an update for this Binder every year???=94 =93Why=
> does say AutoIT, Kixtart, Free versions of Pascal, Free versions of
> Basic, etc=85 allow me to make FREE .exe/executables, but Euphoria does
> not????
Again, Euphoria *does* allow us to make free executables. After buying
the binder or translator. It is quite normal to pay for a good product,
that I want. Your main point seems to be, that you want to get everything
for free. Did you already write a mail to BMW, claiming they should give
away their cars for free? Of course, there is no doubt that this would
increase the number of people who use their cars.
> Thus, there is this =93drive=94 to have an Open Euphoria project
> and that was only a FEW reasons to clone Euphoria. Think about the
> other reasons why???
>
>> . Then you try to go technical with them about it and explain how much
>> easier it is to use Euphoria than say C/C++ or even Visual Basic, but
>> that argument starts to crack up real soon. Why?? One reason is the
>> power of these newer scripting languages. AutoIt, AutoHotKey, all
>> kinds of automation/scripting languages, etc... are EASY to learn.
>
> I never saw a general purpose programming language that is as simple and
> easy to learn as Euphoria.
Please understand, that the sentence above is a statement about my
personal experience.
> EU-NOW: Again, I believe you are mistaken.
Hm? You are believing that you know better about my personal experience,
than I do myself?
> You have been seduced by
> Euphoria=92s great syntax. Yes, Euphoria is a very good programming
> language. Of that there is not doubt, so that=92s why I=92m here. But,
> you also have to think about NEWBIE programmers, PART-time
> programmers, and POWER USERS that do NOT want to get too heavily
> involved in programming. They want easy, general use, and powerful.
In my opinion, these three groups of people have different needs. It is
very difficult anyway, to make a product that suits a broad range of
different needs. However, I think Euphoria is good for newbie programmers,
part-time programmers and professional programmers. You can find all
those programmers in this community.
> Euphoria is NOT AS easy to setup in many cases as other freeware
> programs. This goes back to an oversight in =93hooking=94 newbie users.
>
> . Euphoria is easier than C/C++ there is no doubt, but Euphoria IS NOT
> as easy as using a MACRO RECORDER/Automation or SCRIPTING in some
> other languages. The reason for this is not just the syntax but the
> TOOLS. What kind of EDITOR, IDE, MACRO RECORDER, POP-UP HELP, SYNTAX
> COMPLETION, etc=85 does the programming language have??? Look at
> AutoIT, KixTart, etc=85 The have some SUPERIOR freeware tools in
> comparison to Euphoria that makes their languages very easy to learn
> and to use. Information on how to use VBScript, Object Pascal, C/C++
> is starting to show up everywhere too now and more freeware tools keep
> coming for these languages. Its not just about they syntax, but also
> about the TOOL offered as well. Now Euphoria has some great freeware
> tools, but many do not come from RDS, but from the USERS.
So what? I'm interested whether a tool does its job, not who made it.
>> They can do AUTOMATION. You use a MACRO RECORDER and it will record
>> your keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc... Now you guys, might think that
>> is for babies, but for programming newbies that FREE automation/macro
>> recorder is very hard to be. Plus those macro recordings can be saved
>> as scripts. So the newbies to automation/scripting languages then can
>> get deeper and start modifying the scripts. AutoIT and KixTart, for
>> example, can now call DLLs, starting to do COM/OLE, etc...
>
> Euphoria not only can call DLLs, it can *build* DLLs ...
> It is *not* a scripting language, you've been told that before. So you
> are comparing apples to oranges here.
>
> EU-NOW:
> 1st off get it clear in your mind that I never said Euphoria is a
> scripting language. I do compare Euphoria with scripting languages
Yes, and that's comparing apples to oranges.
> because many scripting languages are very powerful and are coming
> close to the =93border=94 of what a scripting language is versus a
> programming language. The border is often =93building DLLs=94 and low
> level functions, because many scripting languages can CALL DLLs, do
> COM/OLE, etc=85
>
> So another HUGE factor is how much power do you need in a programming
> language??? Many newbie, part-time programmers, network admin., etc=85
> will NOT see the need to build DLLs or get that deep at first.
> Actually, I=92m in this group. Therefore, they will use scripting
> language and when they have hit a scripting language limits, then they
> will switch.
They are free to do so.
> Finally, there is no reason why Euphoria could not DO higher levels
> things like AUTOMATION or adapt itself more as a scripting language to
> compete with vbscript, jscript, perl, etc=85 Powerful scripting
> languages are TAKING AWAY the need for Euphoria=92s simple syntax (if
> they even knew what it was) because they are simple too. Obviously,
> they are not as powerful as Euphoria yet, but scripting languages like
> AutoIT, Kixtart, WinBatch, Pascal/Delphi Script, etc=85 ARE becoming
> increasingly more powerful. Euphoria, could very easily be adapted to
> the =93high end=94 to demonstrate its superiority to these other scriptin=
g
> languages, but its not. That is a shame, so I=92ve brought this up.
>
> <snip>
>
>> . You then try to get people to USE Euphoria, but they are like, "What
>> the hell am I going to do with it?
>
> That's up to them. They can program almost everything in Euphoria.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm saying, do something about this. Give the BINDER away for FREE.
>> AutoIT, for example, is a compiled script. It uses the concept of
>> "binding" with their script to the AutoIT exe. something very similar
>> to Euphoria. If the Binder were free than people would TRY and USE
>> Euphoria more.
>
> Unless I have evidence to the contrary, I'll doubt it. What is your
> reason for saying that?
>
> EU-NOW: 1ST off the circumstantial evidence is the lack of Euphoria
> users. Look around. Euphoria as a technically superior language,
> should be =93kicking butt=94, but it ain=92t. Ask yourself why??? Free
> scripting languages are =93taking the high end=94 and Free programming
> languages are =93taking the low end=94. C/C++, .NET crap, etc=85 are sti=
ll
> dominating the professional and world standard side or programming.
> So, where does that leave Euphoria??? Euphoria has a rapidly
> decreasing small niche.
>
> In fact MARK what I=92m typing to you. Euphoria has a small window of
> only 1 to 3 years left, before it become an irrelevant computer
> language unless it begins to adapt, change, and/or attract more users.
Maybe you want to mark what Niels Bohr said:
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." 
<snip>
No doubt Euphoria can be improved (and it continuously *has been*
improved in the past). But I think that such a "sweeping blow",
like you did, is inadequate.
Regards,
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
