OpenEuphoria

Re: version of euphoria ZIP

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 05, 2005
• 462 views

Vincent wrote:

> Bernie Ryan wrote:
>>
>> I think that if RDS is not going to bother to supply a zipped
>> version of euphoria that they should at least have a list in the
>> documentation indicating which files are required to run in windows
>> and which files are required to run in DOS. The document directory
>> is filled with useless files trying to convince users why they
>> should use euphoria. Throw these docs out and put only useful
>> information in the docs.
>>
>>
> Hi, Bernie
>
> It's pretty easy to make your own ZIPed copy of the Euphoria directory.
> Maybe I'll post one later tonight on my Yahoo Euphoria group.
>
> You can get a pretty good idea what is required to run Euphoria by
> looking at Euphoria\Bin\Bin.doc. The only files neccessary are the
> individual interpreter executables. Most of the standard library is
> wrappers for machine_proc/func routines, so in many cases you dont need
> it (I always use machine_proc/func; less "including" overhead that way).

I don't think that this is a good idea, because it reduces the
readability of the code.

> The documentation provided with Euphoria is excellent and you know it!
> C.htm/doc provide valid reasons why Euphoria is more productive than
> C/C++ in most cases, though some points might be repeated. Heck, pretty
> much any language is nicer than C or C++.
>
> The GIF banner on the main webpage is half true, but pretty much just
> marketing. Euphoria isnt more powerful than C++ (apples or oranges
> anyone?), but it sure is more "cleaner" than most BASIC dialects.
>
> RDS should do more marketing/advertising so more folks can find out
> about Euphoria, and make our little family bigger.
>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>


Ate you interested in an easy way to reduce "overhead" in e-mails? )

Regards,
   Juergen

-- 
Have you read a good program lately?