RE: Moving on...
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:45:49 +0000 (08/13/03 21:45:49)
> , Peter Willems <peter at integratedmoves.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've made the decision...
>
> [big snip]
>
> I do agree with all your sentiments.
>
> Basically, Euphoria is not yet ready for commercial applications. It is
> *so* close but I couldn't rely on apps written in Euphoria to be robust.
>
> And as you mention, general development time is greatly reduced with
> Euphoria.
>
> I'm not giving up on it yet either.
>
> The main problems, IMHO...
>
> ** No crash clean up routine.
>
> ** No easy access to GUI, Databases, Internet development. Currently we
> must either do these from first principles or use unoffical libraries
> that
> are still in development. This is similar to starting with a C compiler
> without access to commercial libraries.
>
> ** Not many trained developers available. (This is a minor issue as
> learning Eu is very fast).
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> Derek Parnell
>
Hi Derek,
I agree too, but at least now im seeing the event horizon where
Euphoria starts to take on serious competition. Before namespaces
i just didnt see it happening. Other small improvements are
starting to accumulate also which make it more versatile.
If we take a brief (albiet VERY brief 
look into the past,
it wasnt all that long ago when people were discussing how much
better Euphoria was then QBASIC, and now it's just taken for
granted. Euphoria is now so much better then BASIC that isnt
even an issue anymore.
Im having fun building up my own recent library,
but i do find it a bit tedious to have to start everything
from the very ground up -- after all most of the programming
is getting the basic functionality of C before you can even
start doing anything else.
More small improvements will help though i'm sure.
Maybe we should start a 'wish list' for 2.5 to submit to Rob now?
Top of my list is 'reuseable include files'.
Take care for now,
Al
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
