1. Eu OpenSource Vision
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C146B9.2A953480
charset="iso-8859-2"
2. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
3. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
>Some important libraries haven't been
> written yet (DirectX)
Well, Exotica is a directx wrapper, and ExoticaX wraps exotica to make
it easy to use...
I think Euphoria is just right as it is. I like open source projects,
but I have to remind you that sources all selled too, or you can't copy
them without putting his license, that's a thing I hate. I like to
trust people to use my code and give me credits. If they don't they are
bad coders, simply as that.
=====
Best Regards,
Guillermo Bonvehi
AKA: Knixeur - Caballero Rojo
4. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by tone.skoda at siol.net
Sep 27, 2001
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C1474E.53AAACC0
charset="iso-8859-2"
5. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
Hi,
I think Martin brings up a good issue: how to get more people interested in
Euphoria. However, I don't totally agree with his suggestions. I think
point 2 and 3 are a bit beside the real issue and point 5 is already done.
My comment on the other points: free is not always better. I'm willing to
pay for quality. In my opinion Euphoria has quality. I came across Euphoria
whem I was looking for information about Visual Basic. I didn't know
Euphoria by then because it's quit exotic. It's the quality of the
programming concept what made me decide to use it, not the marketing
concept. But I agree that the marketing could be better. The possibility
tot try it for free is good. I think it's one of the best ways to interest
people. I've used Euphoria for a month now and I've come tot the point that
I want to buy the full package. What I had like to do is going to a shop,
look for that nice box with Euphoria, read what's in the box (CD,
documentation, etc.), look at the other boxes to convince myself that I
made the right decision and buy the thing for 40 euro (about $40). For more
detailed information I'd go the bookstore and buy a good book about
programming in Euphoria in my native language.
Now I have to find someone with a creditcard or take a day of to go to the
bank to make an international money-transfer with all extra costs. I then
get a floppy, have to pay transportcosts and wait for ten days. People
don't like that.
Okay, it's the chicken and egg story. Because you don't have enough users,
shops won't sell you package (or you just don't have the recources to reach
the shops in the first place), and because people don't see your product
the number of users grow very slow. But one could make a start. First of
all make a nice CD with a nice jewel-box of it. Try to get selling-agents
in as much country's as possible (to avoid the shipping and money-transfer
problems). Make documentation in the shape of a book. Try to get reviews in
PC-magazines. These are just e few suggestions with are low-cost and you
still sell via the internet.
Greetings,
Jasper.
martin.stachon@worl
donline.cz To: EUforum at topica.com
cc:
26-09-2001 18:29 Subject: Eu OpenSource Vision
Please respond to
EUforum
Hello,
this is my vision of Euphoria :
*The Current State*
The includes distributed with Eu are enough only for DOS.
The most useful libraries are the ones created by users
and with source aviable.
Most the libraries and tools aren't updated frequently (except the IDE),
or they are abandoned (EuSock), or they are lacking documentation,
are incomplete, or have bugs. Some important libraries haven't been written
yet (DirectX)
To Euphoria be competitive with other languages (VisualBasic, C)
that comes with CDs full of libraries and exaples, this should be changed.
For example, newbies often want to write games. Although Eu is easy and
fast to learn language, good for newbies, they have no easy way to use
DirectX.
(And I'm not mentioning all the lots of 3D engines aviable for C/C++).
After saying
"Euphoria is some DOS crap.", they will move to C, where they will have
problems
with pointers, types etc.
*Things that can be done*
1) Get larger user base. The most difficult and most important point.
2) Unite programing style and naming and formatting conventions.
I would suggest the standart RDS style, expcept that tabs would
be used for formatting instead of spaces. Optionally create a tool,
similiar to C "indent" to automatically reformat sources.
3) Unite way to submit patches. If more people were working on single
project, the current practise of sending whole changed libraries or
describing "change this there and that over there" would be uneffective.
A solution based on UNIX "diff" command, or something like that would be
good.
4) Make Euphoria interpreter aviable for free, or at least remove the 300
statement
limit. This would help point 1)
Or even make the interpreter completely open source, with a maintainer
(Rob),
which would keep the style and conception of the language, and wouldn't
allow
'wild' changes (labels, pointers).
5) Set up a page for Eu OpenSource projects with mailing lists, info, news,
progress status,
what can be done, latest patches etc. etc. This could be eventually
hosted at rapideuphoria.com
6) Choose a license for distributing programs and libraries (GPL, LPL ?)
With more libraries and tools aviable, more users would use Eu, making
more libs and tools etc.
Do you think it is impossible ?
Regards,
Martin Stachon
martin.stachon at worldonline.cz
http://www.webpark.cz/stachon
6. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
Martin Stachon wrote:
> I think it is a difference if a library is written by
> a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people
> improving the product every day.
Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"?
> I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So
> many useful programs and libraries are for free.
> Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are
> doing it just for their good feeling they're
> doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame
Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are
far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than
there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship,
many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord,
wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship.
>> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind
>> a single coding style.
>
> For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style.
> I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming
> variables - it would be confusing to have a library with
> fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar()
I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt
you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world,
people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this:
while (1)
{
/* code */
}
versus:
while (1) {
/* code *
}
>> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue.
>
> But it would be good, especially with larger projects.
Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone could
write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches.
>> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away?
>
> A few of commercial products have been given to public.
> Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing
> the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers,
> hopefully, from other languages.
I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register
Euphoria than the ability to bind it.
I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given
the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free, I'd
like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users -
apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.
> (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some
> 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software.
So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on
Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in mind
that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'.
> Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make
> some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc.
Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would be
no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond
would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene
> Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator
> (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob
> would have more time.
When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is on
Robert.
> Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future.
If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is
one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales value.
I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would be
great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue.
I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently
available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was no
rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a
pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like E2C).
-- David Cuny
7. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
David Cuny wrote:
> would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene
I should learn to read my posts before sending them out.
Sorry if the tone seems so argumentative, but much of this has been debated
in the past. I'll just point again to Pete's Euphoria, which has virtually
fallen off the face of the earth.
-- David Cuny
8. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com
Oct 01, 2001
David:
I have not heard before of this version of Euphoria that Pete Eberlein
wrote. Will you please comment more extensively on it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
>
> Martin Stachon wrote:
>
> > I think it is a difference if a library is written by
> > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people
> > improving the product every day.
>
> Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"?
>
> > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So
> > many useful programs and libraries are for free.
> > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are
> > doing it just for their good feeling they're
> > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame
>
> Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are
> far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than
> there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship,
> many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord,
> wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship.
>
>
> >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind
> >> a single coding style.
> >
> > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style.
> > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming
> > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with
> > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar()
>
> I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt
> you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world,
> people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this:
>
> while (1)
> {
> /* code */
> }
>
> versus:
>
> while (1) {
> /* code *
> }
>
>
> >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue.
> >
> > But it would be good, especially with larger projects.
>
> Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone
could
> write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches.
>
>
> >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away?
> >
> > A few of commercial products have been given to public.
> > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing
> > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers,
> > hopefully, from other languages.
>
> I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register
> Euphoria than the ability to bind it.
>
> I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given
> the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free,
I'd
> like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users -
> apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.
>
>
> > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some
> > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software.
>
> So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on
> Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in
mind
> that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'.
>
>
> > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make
> > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc.
>
> Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would
be
> no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond
> would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene
>
>
> > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator
> > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob
> > would have more time.
>
> When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is
on
> Robert.
>
>
> > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future.
>
> If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is
> one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales
value.
> I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would
be
> great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue.
>
> I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently
> available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was
no
> rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a
> pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like
E2C).
>
> -- David Cuny
>
>
>
9. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
David Cuny writes:
> I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market.
> Given the history of people expecting most things on the platform
> to be free, I'd like to know if there's a significant number of
> registered Linux users - apart from those that started using
> Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.
Most people register the WIN32 + DOS32 interpreter package.
However, since the Linux version became available,
15% to 20% of those registering have included Linux,
either by itself, or more likely, in combination with WIN32+DOS32.
These are mostly new users, not existing WIN32+DOS32 users.
Given that most people don't even have Linux, this
percentage seems quite reasonable.
Since the Translator became available, about 15% to 20%
of new users have included the Translator when registering, plus a lot of
existing users registered for the Translator when it first came out.
Given that most people don't have a C compiler installed
on their machine (and don't want one), this also seems reasonable.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
10. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
11. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
12. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
13. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
Pete wrote:
> I don't have a Mac (or emulator) or compiler with otherwise
> I would [compile it].
If you don't mind sticking to the 'classic' Mac, the Basislisk II emulator
works quite well:
http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bauec002/B2Main.html
I've used the version with the JIT compiler, and it works just fine.
There is the free MPW C/C++ compiler:
http://developer.apple.com/tools/mpw-tools/
It runs just fine under the Basilisk emulator. I've also picked up an old
'bronze' MetroWerks compiler from eBay which generates 'fat' binaries.
-- David Cuny
14. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
David Cuny writes:
> Martin Stachon wrote:
>
> > I think it is a difference if a library is written by
> > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people
> > improving the product every day.
>
> Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"?
Yes, I was in hurry.
>
> > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So
> > many useful programs and libraries are for free.
> > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are
> > doing it just for their good feeling they're
> > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame
>
> Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are
> far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than
> there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship,
> many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord,
> wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship.
But Euphoria - only IDE developping and win32lib with time delays.
I don't know of any other active projects.
> >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind
> >> a single coding style.
> >
> > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style.
> > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming
> > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with
> > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar()
>
> I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt
> you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world,
> people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this:
>
> while (1)
> {
> /* code */
> }
>
> versus:
>
> while (1) {
> /* code *
> }
>
I think the second way was accepted. I didn't want to say
"everybody must code this way", but I wanted to say
"it would be nice to not have confusion with WSockGetIP, int_to_bytes,
getText etc."
> >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue.
> >
> > But it would be good, especially with larger projects.
>
> Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone
could
> write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches.
Since Eu projects are small (<1 MB), it is easy to distribute the whole file
modified, but for example with win32lib it would be good to release a patch
after each of all the bugfixes Derek's posting, and of course with larger
projects.
> >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away?
> >
> > A few of commercial products have been given to public.
> > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing
> > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers,
> > hopefully, from other languages.
>
> I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register
> Euphoria than the ability to bind it.
>
> I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given
> the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free,
I'd
> like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users -
> apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.
>
>
> > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some
> > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software.
>
> So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on
> Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in
mind
> that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'.
Just a idea of possibility of incereasing no. of users. But I guess Rob, of
course,
wants to have a source of money.
> > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make
> > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc.
>
> Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would
be
> no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond
> would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene
>
>
> > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator
> > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob
> > would have more time.
>
> When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is
on
> Robert.
>
>
> > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future.
>
> If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is
> one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales
value.
> I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would
be
> great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue.
>
> I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently
> available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was
no
> rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a
> pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like
E2C).
It seems that most of people (including me) don't work so good for free as
if they would be paid for it. This is capitalism. Maybe Eu should remain
commercial, but making Eu OS wasn't my main idea. Maybe some good
propagation with some good apps written in Eu may attract more people
that making Eu OS.
Martin
