Future of EU::::Re: Block Commenting
Having read this, i also remember moving from java,VC++ in search for a
euphoria-like language(simple syntax,etc). I programmed in the above
languages for a while and u'll be surprised the API and development
difference they have compared to euphoria. Right now i use php(Has a large
set of standard API).
As far as i know, euphoria is the easiest/fastest/most interesting language
ever, but when it comes to development....its lags(No standized libraries)
Things euphoria needs added for faster development(my views)
1) Large set of standardized API like PHP. we need to all team up and create
a standard win32 library, preferably cross-platform. My best idea at the
moment is Matt creating an abstract layer for wxEuphoria(with help) which
has no OO stuff. from this core layer, win32lib developers can build the
format of win32lib on it(ie same function names).
2)Euphoria should have both procedural and Object oriented supported eg
java,C++ or PHP. If this can be done via include file, what harm will it
bring making OO part of the language? Besides coders have an option of both
worlds. This is one of the key factors why other languages are doing well.
3) Better support for openeuphoria or euphoria(RDS), from registered users
having the interprtor source.
Hold on!.....as far as i know, all this can be done. It all boils down to
proper organization/management. Euphoria has a poor(in my pov) team
organisation, There almost no coordinated teams. if any of you wants to
argue with me, take a survey to either sourceforge.net,freshmeat.com and
follow links to those projects(Home pages), you'll find they have proper
team SPIRIT and GOALS. Im very impressed with OpenEuphoria,Fluid Interface
and my site(http://logicsoft.pcplayground.com) for putting a first footstep
to coordinated development. If there are pple out there who want project
based forums....all u need to do is ask me to create one for you at
logicsoft. Or when i get my 30Gig server.
And no!, im not just trying to advertise my site! im trying to address
current facts about euphoria and its future
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Smith" <smithr at ix.net.au>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:52 AM
Subject: RE: Block Commenting
>
>
> 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
>
> --^----------------------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent to: fred at jordah.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
