OpenEuphoria

RE: Block Commenting

• Posted by Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au> Aug 04, 2003
• 508 views

Peter Willems wrote:

>     My pov at this is formed because lately I've reviewed several
>     programming languages in search of a new development platform
>     for my company. The resulting conclusion is that most languages
>     that are of interest need 10 Mb or more of virtual machine,
>     interpreter or other supporting files to be able to run just
>     a simple program. The way I see it is that this is the result of
>     decisions to implement as much stuff as discussed here into the
>     core support files of a language, making it bloated and in need
>     of a fairly fast machine to have usable performance.
>     Try to run a Python based program and you know what I mean.
>     As a language, Python is quite cool and supports everything
>     you are talking about and much more, but clearly at a price.
> 
>     I'm not against progress, but performance-wise the fastest 
>     languages are the ones with a small command set and specific
>     functionality added as auxiliary functions on a per-project
>     basis.
> 
> Hans Peter Willems

I haven't followed this thread all the way through but ...

Since I was a Euphoria fanatic and am now Python convert I wanted to 
respond with the reasons why I have switched ...

I agree that perfectly you it would be nice to have a development 
environment that had a full set of features, required a small amount
of RAM to execute and run at the speed of light, 
since this doesn't exist the question becomes ... what are you 
willing to sacrifice?

For me it was RAM usage and execution speed.
"My" requirements are to allow me as a developer to produce software
as easily as possible, make it as stable as possible, and allow me 
to modify/enhance my programs in the future as easily as possible.

i.e. I consider "my" resources to be more valuable then my computers
resources.

Your "performance-wise" comment is 100% true, but I can happily run
almost all Python programs I have ever seen on a PII 300 with 128MB 
RAM.
If you're in the business of delivering software to users who don't
have enough money to spend $200 on a better computer I think you
have your business plan wrong.  
Is it better to take 12 months to produce a software package with 
Euphoria that runs on 100% of PC's ... or ...
Send 2 or 3 months to do the same thing with Python (or another 
language) that works on 95% of PC's?  
(Unless you live in Russia and your first name is Igor!!)

Euphoria isn't being developeded nearly fast enough, it's implossible
for one person to develop a language with a "full" set of features 
that can compete with other languages of today.

The fact that Euphoria doesn't have threads and execption handling
means that some tasks are impossible.  You can build as many 
libraries and add-ons as you want but some tasks are impossible.

The user base just isn't strong enough either.  I'd rather use Perl
than Euphoria now days.  I hate Perl (so that tells you what I think
about the future of Euphoria), but at least it has a full set
of features, has a HUGE library / user base and is being actively 
developed.  

I almost consider Python to be a "Super" Euphoria.  Not quiet, but 
it does have a similar elegence.

As I've always said though, everyone is free to make their own 
chooses and if Euphoria, Python, Perl etc etc allows you to develop
software the way you want it then be happy with your choice.

Regards,

Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com