Monday, May 27, 2013

It's about time...

...this Linux newbie (me) learns to write shell scripts.

I'm also going to need to grok this so I can include resources and statically link.

Update: On Windows [you can] link in an application specific resource file. That sucks for Linux programmers! The workaround would be to put resources in code which requires writing a program to create this pseudo resource file. Something that Euphoria should actually be pretty good at.

Also, static linking seems to be out as the translator only supports dynamic linking; however, I have source so if I don't mind the extra compile time it not a real issue; double however, I do mind the extra compile time so I'm going to have to think a bit more about this. Producing C output and linking that has other issues besides not really saving compile time. Code has to be specific to which method you use.

Update: Pieces of what I need exist in the Euphoria archive. The plan is to create a single Euphoria code file from a single folder of resources. This file will have functions for using the resources probably by filename and is just a regular part of the compile. Piece of cake.

Update: I took issue with the "very large jump in functionality" claim by OpenEuphoria. Let me clarify what I mean. Adding the first loop construct adds functionality. Adding a dozen more variations does not. They do add some functionality by that definition, but when you take out all that I consider not, 'very large jump' no longer qualifies. This is not to say they didn't do a good job which they did. I'm not putting them down. It's like syntax highlighting. It's nice, but not a groundbreaking improvement in productivity. Being able to forward reference functions? Now that's a real improvement.

If I were in charge? You'd write code in a RAD enviroment with the most important function being  [one click] drill down bringing you right to the definition of a routine. This would imply GTK or some other standard being built into the language. Once I get GTK working [more than I already have, thanks to Irv Mullins] I may then adapt Judith Evans IDE to work with Linux.

Second, without real error handling that doesn't drop you out of the program it's nearly impossible to write a [truly professional] commercial application (but they do, don't they? Hey, and I plan to join them. Perfectionist that I once was be damned. Losing eye sight means not having the time to be so fussy.)

No comments: