Re: OpenEuphoria's Strategy
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Feb 03, 2015
- 2764 views
Most of this diatribe is just nonsense. Even a mere glance at the news page page quickly exposes most of the false and misleading statements.
irv is talking about the pre-1995 days, predating the oldest new on that page. I believe what he said was true, for the earliest versions of Euphoria.
The context of Irv's comment was clearly linked to "OpenEuphoria" and the releasing of the source (which was 2006).
I disagree. I think the defining events were the release of 4.0.0 and the dropping of DOS support.
A lot of users unhappy at the direction 4.0 has gone seem quite happy with 3.1.1, which was open source and released by the dev team....
Any suggestion that OpenEuphoria emerged because of frustration at the slow pace of development etc pre-1995 is just ridiculous given that Eu 1.0 was only released in 1993!
Some allowance must be made for hyperbole.
The slur about "posters here who seem to want Euphoria to be unusable on modern computers" is not only false but a clear violation of the Code of Conduct.
No, it isn't. As a third party looking in, I think that the inference is reasonable - and in any case, irv only says it seems to be this way and admits that it's puzzling. Which is to say that irv implies that it's possible he might be wrong. irv isn't forcibly attributing a view to a specific user that the user does not hold, but generically stating that some (unspecified) individuals appear to hold these views.... This is appropriate and not disrespectful to anyone.
Even if irv were forcibly attributing obviously false views to users who clearly didn't hold them, this isn't a CodeOfConduct violation unless the user that irv is attacking can be reasonably identified.
If you can justify (as you have attempted to) the legitimacy of a comment like "posters here who seem to want Euphoria to be unusable on modern computers" then can I legitimately say "developers who seem to want to bastardise Euphoria and make it a hoary dog of a language" ?
Well, can I?
Short answer: yes, with some minor rewording: "there appear to be some developers out there who seem to want to bastardise Euphoria and make it a hoary dog of a language" ?
Long answer: no, because the phrasing is vague and can be interpreted two ways: some developers want to do X, or all developers want to do X. The second form clearly identifies the target to the point that we can name names. Since it's not clear which version is intended, a reasonable person can conclude that it was the second form that was meant.
To some people such an inference might seem completely reasonable.
Spock
I don't agree. I think there's a difference between feature-ism and trying to make things look like canines. I suppose some allowance must be made for hyperbole, however...
