1. .il code/file questions
- Posted by Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 766 views
Questions: 1) Can I create (unshrouded) .il files that will run with backend.exe by using the .il producing code in the PD source? 2) Can I translate .il files? 3) Why not release the Eu source for the translator? What I really want to know is if I hack the Eu front-end, is there a way to use this new front-end as usual with the rest of the Euphoria tools? (i.e. translating, or at least binding) Obviously I can register the interpreter source and create a modified interpreter. It seems natural that since the translator uses the same front-end now that I would also be able to create a modified translator so that I can do all the things I can usually do, but with a customized version of Eu. Because what would really be desirable is to be able to develop programs in my modified (front-end hacked) version of Euphoria and then be able to distribute an executable of that program, preferably translated, or at least bound. In other words, I have no interest in creating & distributing a modified version of Euphoria, but in creating a modified version of Euphoria for myself that I can develop programs with. However, if there is no way to distribute such developed programs (as executables), then the worth of the whole thing is much less, at least for me. Possible? Allowed?
2. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 701 views
Andy Serpa wrote: > > Questions: > > 1) Can I create (unshrouded) .il files that will run with backend.exe by using > the > .il producing code in the PD source? > > 2) Can I translate .il files? > > 3) Why not release the Eu source for the translator? > > What I really want to know is if I hack the Eu front-end, is there a way to > use this > new front-end as usual with the rest of the Euphoria tools? (i.e. > translating, or > at least binding) Obviously I can register the interpreter source and create > a modified > interpreter. It seems natural that since the translator uses the same > front-end now > that I would also be able to create a modified translator so that I can do all > the > things I can usually do, but with a customized version of Eu. > > Because what would really be desirable is to be able to develop programs in my > modified > (front-end hacked) version of Euphoria and then be able to distribute an > executable of > that program, preferably translated, or at least bound. In other words, I > have no interest > in creating & distributing a modified version of Euphoria, but in creating a > modified > version of Euphoria for myself that I can develop programs with. However, if > there is > no way to distribute such developed programs (as executables), then the worth > of the whole > thing is much less, at least for me. > > Possible? Allowed? I'm the same here, Robert. I also wish to create IL files that the RDS backend can run, but I wish to do it without using the RDS front end. This is the crux of most issues with Euphoria. That is, we have changes we'd like to see in the syntax of Euphoria, but still use the base concepts that are implemented in the IL interpreter. I have no wish to complete with RDS Euphoria but I would like to use a 'better' syntax for my executables. So I would like to develop some languages that emit IL that RDS's back end can execute. If we could do something like ... mylang hello.djp -o hello.il -l hello.lst bind hello.il hello.exe So in essence the RDS binder can also read IL files, and works like a link editor to form an executable. The format of an IL file will have to be standardized, but that is not such a big issue that destroys this idea. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
3. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 690 views
- Last edited Nov 18, 2004
Andy Serpa wrote: > 1) Can I create (unshrouded) .il files that will run with backend.exe by using > the > .il producing code in the PD source? No. The .il format is proprietary. I'm trying to make Euphoria as open as possible, while still having something to sell. I can't let the whole world edit my source and produce modified versions of Euphoria, that run at the same speed as mine. > 2) Can I translate .il files? No. The owner of the .il can translate his original source. Anyone else should not be allowed to convert a .il into readable C source. > 3) Why not release the Eu source for the translator? > > What I really want to know is if I hack the Eu front-end, is there a way to > use this > new front-end as usual with the rest of the Euphoria tools? (i.e. > translating, or > at least binding) Obviously I can register the interpreter source and create > a modified > interpreter. It seems natural that since the translator uses the same > front-end now > that I would also be able to create a modified translator so that I can do all > the > things I can usually do, but with a customized version of Eu. > > Because what would really be desirable is to be able to develop programs in my > modified > (front-end hacked) version of Euphoria and then be able to distribute an > executable of > that program, preferably translated, or at least bound. In other words, I > have no interest > in creating & distributing a modified version of Euphoria, but in creating a > modified > version of Euphoria for myself that I can develop programs with. However, if > there is > no way to distribute such developed programs (as executables), then the worth > of the whole > thing is much less, at least for me. > > Possible? Allowed? In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with the restriction that it can only be used for private use, and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria to the masses. It would involve extra configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport work for me, and I don't think there are very many people, other than potential competitors, who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy. In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter. It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this age of openness. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
4. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 677 views
- Last edited Nov 18, 2004
Robert Craig wrote: > > In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with > the restriction that it can only be used for private use, > and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria > to the masses. It would involve extra > configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport > work for me, and I don't think there are very many people, > other than potential competitors, > who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator > in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy. > In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter. > > It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this > age of openness. > How about this? You already have an open-source front-end. Now we just have to get to the point where that can really be useful. What I would like, and I think it would increase demand for sales rather than decrease it, is this: allow me or anyone to hack to the front-end to our heart's content, and then allow that front-end to be "plugged in" for use with the translator or binder. We would still need to buy the binder from you to make .il files, and we would still have to register the translator to get rid of the delay. Since the translator is now written in Euphoria, couldn't it actually just run as interpreted Euphoria instead of as an .exe? You could shroud the proprietary parts of it, but allow us to replace the unshrouded front-end source files with our modified versions. Isn't this basically what we can do with the interpreter if we register the source? So let's allow it with the translator too -- a fully user-modifiable front-end that emits the same .il as usual, but arrived at differently because the user has modified the parser, etc. I hope I am explaining clearly...
5. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 689 views
- Last edited Nov 18, 2004
Andy Serpa wrote: > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with > > the restriction that it can only be used for private use, > > and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria > > to the masses. It would involve extra > > configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport > > work for me, and I don't think there are very many people, > > other than potential competitors, > > who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator > > in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy. > > In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter. > > > > It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this > > age of openness. > > > > How about this? You already have an open-source front-end. Now we just have > to get > to the point where that can really be useful. What I would like, and I think > it would > increase demand for sales rather than decrease it, is this: allow me or anyone > to hack > to the front-end to our heart's content, and then allow that front-end to be > "plugged > in" for use with the translator or binder. We would still need to buy the > binder from > you to make .il files, and we would still have to register the translator to > get rid > of the delay. Since the translator is now written in Euphoria, couldn't it > actually > just run as interpreted Euphoria instead of as an .exe? You could shroud the > proprietary > parts of it, but allow us to replace the unshrouded front-end source files > with our > modified versions. Isn't this basically what we can do with the interpreter > if we > register the source? So let's allow it with the translator too -- a fully > user-modifiable > front-end that emits the same .il as usual, but arrived at differently because > the > user has modified the parser, etc. I hope I am explaining clearly... This is the sort of thing I was also suggesting. RDS doesn't lose on the deal because the only thing we would be replacing is the free stuff anyway. In fact, RDS needs to realize that they have multiple products - the free Euphoria-to-IL converter(s) - the front-end, and the not-free binder that can bind backend.exe to an IL to create a new .exe file. I want to support RDS's backend because its very very good. Its just that I would like to create the IL using a different tool than the free RDS product. I know that the current IL file format is proprietary but that doesn't mean that another, public format, can't be devised and supported by bind.exe. In fact, I've already started documenting a file format that could become the 'official' standard, after lot's of peer review. It would be only if RDS refuses to support this idea, that some real competition could evolve to challenge RDS's income stream. This is a real win-win for all. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
6. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 17, 2004
- 668 views
- Last edited Nov 18, 2004
On 17 Nov 2004, at 14:55, Derek Parnell wrote: > > > posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> > > Andy Serpa wrote: > > > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > > > In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with > > > the restriction that it can only be used for private use, > > > and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria > > > to the masses. It would involve extra > > > configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport > > > work for me, and I don't think there are very many people, > > > other than potential competitors, > > > who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator > > > in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy. > > > In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter. > > > > > > It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this > > > age of openness. > > > > > > > How about this? You already have an open-source front-end. Now we just > > have > > to get to the point where that can really be useful. What I would like, and > > I > > think it would increase demand for sales rather than decrease it, is this: > > allow me or anyone to hack to the front-end to our heart's content, and then > > allow that front-end to be "plugged in" for use with the translator or > > binder. > > We would still need to buy the binder from you to make .il files, and we > > would still have to register the translator to get rid of the delay. Since > > the translator is now written in Euphoria, couldn't it actually just run as > > interpreted Euphoria instead of as an .exe? You could shroud the > > proprietary > > parts of it, but allow us to replace the unshrouded front-end source files > > with our modified versions. Isn't this basically what we can do with the > > interpreter if we register the source? So let's allow it with the > > translator > > too -- a fully user-modifiable front-end that emits the same .il as usual, > > but > > arrived at differently because the user has modified the parser, etc. I > > hope > > I am explaining clearly... > > This is the sort of thing I was also suggesting. RDS doesn't lose on the > deal because the only thing we would be replacing is the free stuff anyway. > > In fact, RDS needs to realize that they have multiple products - the free > Euphoria-to-IL converter(s) - the front-end, and the not-free binder that > can bind backend.exe to an IL to create a new .exe file. > > I want to support RDS's backend because its very very good. Its just that > I would like to create the IL using a different tool than the free RDS > product. > > I know that the current IL file format is proprietary but that doesn't > mean that another, public format, can't be devised and supported by > bind.exe. In fact, I've already started documenting a file format > that could become the 'official' standard, after lot's of peer review. > > It would be only if RDS refuses to support this idea, that some real > competition could evolve to challenge RDS's income stream. This is > a real win-win for all. I second the motion. Kat
7. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 698 views
Derek Parnell wrote: > > Andy Serpa wrote: > > > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > > > In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with > > > the restriction that it can only be used for private use, > > > and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria > > > to the masses. It would involve extra > > > configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport > > > work for me, and I don't think there are very many people, > > > other than potential competitors, > > > who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator > > > in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy. > > > In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter. > > > > > > It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this > > > age of openness. > > > > > > > How about this? You already have an open-source front-end. Now we just > > have to get > > to the point where that can really be useful. What I would like, and I > > think it would > > increase demand for sales rather than decrease it, is this: allow me or > > anyone to hack > > to the front-end to our heart's content, and then allow that front-end to be > > "plugged > > in" for use with the translator or binder. We would still need to buy the > > binder from > > you to make .il files, and we would still have to register the translator to > > get rid > > of the delay. Since the translator is now written in Euphoria, couldn't it > > actually > > just run as interpreted Euphoria instead of as an .exe? You could shroud > > the proprietary > > parts of it, but allow us to replace the unshrouded front-end source files > > with our > > modified versions. Isn't this basically what we can do with the interpreter > > if we > > register the source? So let's allow it with the translator too -- a fully > > user-modifiable > > front-end that emits the same .il as usual, but arrived at differently > > because the > > user has modified the parser, etc. I hope I am explaining clearly... > > This is the sort of thing I was also suggesting. RDS doesn't lose on the > deal because the only thing we would be replacing is the free stuff anyway. > > In fact, RDS needs to realize that they have multiple products - the free > Euphoria-to-IL converter(s) - the front-end, and the not-free binder that > can bind backend.exe to an IL to create a new .exe file. > > I want to support RDS's backend because its very very good. Its just that > I would like to create the IL using a different tool than the free RDS > product. > > I know that the current IL file format is proprietary but that doesn't > mean that another, public format, can't be devised and supported by > bind.exe. In fact, I've already started documenting a file format > that could become the 'official' standard, after lot's of peer review. > > It would be only if RDS refuses to support this idea, that some real > competition could evolve to challenge RDS's income stream. This is > a real win-win for all. Sorry for the slow response. This is a tricky question to answer. It may be premature to even try to settle this issue now. After all, 2.5 has been out for all of two days. Derek and Andy, you have little experience in modifying the front end, and neither of you has described what changes you would like to make. You might discover that you actually need back-end changes as well, to properly implement some feature. The Euphoria back-end was designed specifically to execute Euphoria programs, not a wide variety of assorted programming languages. The Source Code product lets you make any changes you like, to either the front end, or the back-end. The only "catch" is that the interpreter you create must be for your own use. You can't distribute it to the world (unless it runs on a new platform). The Public Domain source lets anyone in the world, for free, make any changes they like to the way the Euphoria interpreter works. The only "catch" is that it runs slower than the official interpreter. Translating it helps, but it's still slower. I feel I'm already walking a tight rope, balancing openness with the need to protect my income. It should be obvious that I can't make it easy for people to produce their own "enhanced" versions of Euphoria that run at the same speed as mine, and can be distributed widely. That would be financially reckless, if not suicidal. I'm not saying this proposal would necessarily do that, but I feel the tight rope getting narrower. I also feel I have enough product configurations on enough platforms to keep me busy for now. Adding another configuration that would be used by only a few people wishing to create fast personalized versions of Euphoria would probably not be a good use of my development/testing/documenting time. But maybe I'll "see the light" after 2.5 has been out a while longer. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
8. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 710 views
Robert Craig wrote: [snip] > But maybe I'll "see the light" after 2.5 has been out a while longer. It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time here. I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. -- Derek Parnell "A fool and his money are soon parted".
9. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 19, 2004
- 685 views
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:39:31 -0800, Robert Craig <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote: >Derek Parnell wrote: <snip> >> I want to support RDS's backend because its very very good. Its just that >> I would like to create the IL using a different tool than the free RDS >> product. <snip> >You might discover that you actually need back-end changes as well, > to properly implement some feature. Hopefully that's unlikely. A lot of it seems to be syntactic sugar. >The Source Code product lets you make any changes you like, >to either the front end, or the back-end. The only "catch" >is that the interpreter you create must be for your own use. >You can't distribute it to the world (unless it runs on a new >platform). Hmmm... Excuse me for putting words in your mouth, but what I think you should be saying is something like this (some parts unedited): >The Public Domain source lets anyone in the world, for free, >make any changes they like to the way the Euphoria interpreter works. >The only "catch" is that it runs slower than >the official interpreter. Translating it helps, but it's >still slower. If you buy the sources, you get: > B. a bit of extra closed-source Euphoria code that > interfaces the Euphoria front-end with my C back-end. If you want to redistribute your modified compiler, you can, but not including B. You can of course suggest to your users that they buy B from RDS to make it run at full speed. Am I missing something here? Regards, Pete
10. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 19, 2004
- 679 views
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:10:42 +0000, Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >If you want to redistribute your modified compiler, you can, but not >including B. I should perhaps add "either plainsource, bound, or compiled". Pete
11. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> Nov 19, 2004
- 679 views
Derek Parnell wrote: > It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. > > I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time here. > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. I wish you all the luck in the world. You've been one of the greatest contributors, and an inspiration to us all. You've encouraged people to create programs, you've dedicated a lot of time and effort to Win32Lib, which has grown a lot lately, with many new marvelous features. I really feel the Euphoria community could use more people like you, who are not afraid to tell what they think, but who are always honest and trying to help others. The community won't be the same without you. -- tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
12. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 692 views
Pete Lomax wrote: > Am I missing something here? Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better decision when some people actually start to do something with the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. If what they want to do is take full control of the source, add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put me out of business, they'll have a long wait. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
13. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 695 views
Robert Craig wrote: > > Pete Lomax wrote: > > Am I missing something here? > > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better > decision when some people actually start to do something with > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. > If what they want to do is take full control of the source, > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put > me out of business, they'll have a long wait. > I'm really having a tough time figuring out where the threat to your business comes from. People can already create modified versions of the interpreter than run at full speed by buying the source from you. So your defensive strategy is to make sure that doing that is not useful for anything? I for one was ready to plunk down my money for the source, the binder, & the translator, but now knowing that I won't actually be able to use the binder or the source for any useful purpose -- i.e. create executables / actually be able to develop software -- what's the point? This effectively reduces the "purposeful" new features of 2.5 to crash_routine() and the $ shorthand symbol. So now I wondering if I should even bother using 2.5 at all. What we're proposing creates a demand for your binder since it would be the only way to run .il code at full speed. This all seems so obvious I have a hard time accepting that you even understand what we mean. Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents length(this sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some other stuff like that to cut down on my own typing. So I modify the front-end to add some new shorthand. For instance, maybe I'd have: s &&= x be equivalent to: s = append(s,x). And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this: integer x = 4. Just basic pre-processor type stuff. Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because now I can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. So if I can't even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting to add more complex new features (new functions, built-in support for external libraries, etc.) is also out of the question. So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your binder or translator still in order to do the binding or translating? Your .il format can remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the problem? You keep talking about people releasing enhanced versions of the language itself, but anyone CAN ALREADY DO THAT by buying the source from you (and breaking the license, of course). How is this a new or different threat?
14. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by codepilot Gmail Account <codepilot at gmail.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 683 views
Let me see here for a moment whats going on, just to see if I properly understand it all. 2.5 is 1. Addition of $ shorthand 2. front end euphoria parser Public Domain 3. New Backend.exe and BACKENDW.EXE thingies Ok, now 1 is well understood. 2, the front end being PD is good, but can't be changed and still be able to bind/translate output bad, i guess change=slow eueu thing. 3, totally not understanding purpose, I guess there for binding too, but why are the in the public package if they can't be used without Registering? Perhaps I'm totally confused, so get your marketing people to start a consumer education program, or clearly outline these things somewhere, please. Daniel PS. I'm really happy that euphoria is taking some major steps, I just can't quite tell where it's going. On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:23:33 -0800, Andy Serpa <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote: > > > > posted by: Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > Pete Lomax wrote: > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > > > > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. > > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling > > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for > > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways > > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better > > decision when some people actually start to do something with > > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better > > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. > > If what they want to do is take full control of the source, > > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put > > me out of business, they'll have a long wait. > > > > I'm really having a tough time figuring out where the threat to your business > comes from. People can already create modified versions of the interpreter than > run at full speed by buying the source from you. So your defensive strategy is > to make sure that doing that is not useful for anything? I for one was ready to > plunk down my money for the source, the binder, & the translator, but now knowing > that I won't actually be able to use the binder or the source for any useful > purpose -- i.e. create executables / actually be able to develop software -- > what's the point? This effectively reduces the "purposeful" new features of 2.5 > to crash_routine() and the $ shorthand symbol. So now I wondering if I should > even bother using 2.5 at all. What we're proposing creates a demand for your > binder since it would be the only way to run .il code at full speed. This all > seems so obvious I have a hard time accepting that you even understand what we > mean. > > Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents length(this > sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some other stuff like that to > cut down on my own typing. So I modify the front-end to add some new shorthand. > For instance, maybe I'd have: > > s &&= x > > be equivalent to: s = append(s,x). > > And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this: > > integer x = 4. > > Just basic pre-processor type stuff. > > Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because now I > can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. So if I can't > even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting to add more complex new > features (new functions, built-in support for external libraries, etc.) is also > out of the question. > > So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your binder > or translator still in order to do the binding or translating? Your .il format > can remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the problem? You keep > talking about people releasing enhanced versions of the language itself, but > anyone CAN ALREADY DO THAT by buying the source from you (and breaking the > license, of course). How is this a new or different threat? > > > > >
15. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 663 views
On 19 Nov 2004, at 0:23, Andy Serpa wrote: > > > posted by: Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > Pete Lomax wrote: > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > > > > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. > > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling > > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for > > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways > > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better > > decision when some people actually start to do something with > > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better > > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. > > If what they want to do is take full control of the source, > > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put > > me out of business, they'll have a long wait. > > > > I'm really having a tough time figuring out where the threat to your business > comes from. People can already create modified versions of the interpreter > than > run at full speed by buying the source from you. So your defensive strategy > is > to make sure that doing that is not useful for anything? I for one was ready > to > plunk down my money for the source, the binder, & the translator, but now > knowing that I won't actually be able to use the binder or the source for any > useful purpose -- i.e. create executables / actually be able to develop > software > -- what's the point? This effectively reduces the "purposeful" new features > of > 2.5 to crash_routine() and the $ shorthand symbol. So now I wondering if I > should even bother using 2.5 at all. What we're proposing creates a demand > for > your binder since it would be the only way to run .il code at full speed. > This > all seems so obvious I have a hard time accepting that you even understand > what > we mean. > > Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents length(this > sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some other stuff like that > to > cut down on my own typing. So I modify the front-end to add some new > shorthand. > For instance, maybe I'd have: > > s &&= x > > be equivalent to: s = append(s,x). > > And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this: > > integer x = 4. > > Just basic pre-processor type stuff. > > Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because now I > can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. So if I can't > even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting to add more complex > new > features (new functions, built-in support for external libraries, etc.) is > also > out of the question. > > So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your binder > or > translator still in order to do the binding or translating? Your .il format > can > remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the problem? You keep talking > about people releasing enhanced versions of the language itself, but anyone > CAN > ALREADY DO THAT by buying the source from you (and breaking the license, of > course). How is this a new or different threat? I agree with this and with Derek,, what was the point to separating a front/back end if we cannot make full common sense use of the source to feed legal il code to the back end, and still bind that legal il code to the back end for exe and dll apps? What did you do that we aren't understanding, Robert? You say the il code is to remain hidden behind non-dissemination clauses, but we still cannot make it run with our own frontends (like for goto, case, with... localinclude, etc etc) using the RDS backend that we buy, because ... i forget why. Is this meant to put an end to projects like Bach? Just what was your vision for 2.5, Rob?? Kat
16. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 671 views
On 18 Nov 2004, at 23:05, Tommy Carlier wrote: > > > posted by: Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> > > Derek Parnell wrote: > > It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. > > > > I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time here. > > > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > I wish you all the luck in the world. You've been one of the greatest > contributors, and an inspiration to us all. You've encouraged people to > create programs, you've dedicated a lot of time and effort to Win32Lib, > which has grown a lot lately, with many new marvelous features. > I really feel the Euphoria community could use more people like you, > who are not afraid to tell what they think, but who are always honest > and trying to help others. > The community won't be the same without you. But think of what a great programmer and person the OpenEu community can gain. DavidC, Derek, and others retain copyright to win32lib, it's look, feel, use, code, etc.. Kat
17. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 683 views
Robert Craig wrote: > > Pete Lomax wrote: > > Am I missing something here? > > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better > decision when some people actually start to do something with > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. > If what they want to do is take full control of the source, > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put > me out of business, they'll have a long wait. Rob, I think we understand your concern, however, I don't think anyone has properly articulated what they're asking for. We can currently examine the PD front end and see the guts of il code and the symbol table. What we don't have is a way of turning that into an il file that the backend can execute. What I think is being asked for is basically a breaking up of bind.il, so that instead of it compiling the il, it takes this as input, and then does the magic shrouding and whatnot. I suppose you could call it an il translator. Basically, you'd have to specify an input format for a pre-il file, including anything that's needed from the front end, and then your code puts it into the format that the backend needs. You could sell this as part of the binding feature, or even separately. Then people could distribute their custom code as il files, but anyone who wanted to use the custom language would need to buy your binding package. Spun that way, it seems like a possible increase on the revenue stream. Plus, of course, you could cherry pick what's out there for future releases. It would give nearly immediate relief to those who have namespacing issues (like what my modified interpreter addressed--if I can do it in C, then I can *definitely* to it in Eu) or the include/cannonical paths issue. So, to summarize, I don't think it's really opening anything else up, but it does give an extra incentive to buy the binding package, and the binding process becomes a two step process. Matt Lewis
18. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 19, 2004
- 711 views
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:29:46 -0800, Robert Craig <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote: >Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. The point is the words that you use, not that you necessarily offer anything radically different. Please correct me if I am wrong: The new eu.ex is open source. I can modify it and distribute it as I please (but it's a tad slow). Assuming I don't modify execute.e, then if I purchase the source, it's a simple thing to create a full-featured (bar legacy shrouded code support), full speed interpreter (say myexw.exe). I can send myexw.exe to you, and it will or will not appear in the archive at your discretion. Now, despite having purchased the source, I'm still at liberty to distribute the PD bits I modified, but not myexw.exe (which is the main change to the 2.5 license) I am allowed to tell people where to buy the source. I can supply instructions for recreating myexw.exe, or, if someone can prove they have purchased the source, I can send them myexw.exe. As I re-read the new source license, it dawns upon me that maybe this is what you meant all along. It all now seems a lot more reasonable to me. You just want your $79 from every person in the chain, and then we can do what we like. Sounds fair play to me. Regards, Pete
19. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Jonas Temple <jtemple at yhti.net> Nov 19, 2004
- 692 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > > Derek Parnell wrote: > > It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. > > > > I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time here. > > > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > I wish you all the luck in the world. Wish him luck!?!?!? We should be BEGGING him to stay! Derek, on behalf of the MANY of us who DEPEND on Win32Lib PLEASE STAY!!!!! (on vitural bended knee) There are only a handful of people who would be able to take over Win32Lib (myself not included) and I fear if you leave it will die! > The community won't be the same without you. I wholeheartedly agree. Let's face it...without Win32Lib most of the Eu newbies would run away scared. I realize there are other Windows libraries and certainly "hats off" to their creators but I would guess that +/-75% of all Euphoria Windows programs were written with Win32Lib. Derek your efforts are appreciated here and if you go ... (breaks down sobbing) ... then ... (sob) ... you'll certainly be missed! Jonas Temple http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple
20. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Marc Giao <giao at sympatico.ca> Nov 19, 2004
- 669 views
Jonas Temple wrote: > > Tommy Carlier wrote: > > > > Derek Parnell wrote: > > > It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. > > > > > > I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time > > > here. > > > > > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > > > I wish you all the luck in the world. > > Wish him luck!?!?!? We should be BEGGING him to stay! Derek, on behalf of > the MANY of us who DEPEND on Win32Lib PLEASE STAY!!!!! (on vitural bended > knee) There are only a handful of people who would be able to take over > Win32Lib (myself not included) and I fear if you leave it will die! > > > The community won't be the same without you. > > I wholeheartedly agree. Let's face it...without Win32Lib most of the Eu > newbies would run away scared. I realize there are other Windows > libraries and certainly "hats off" to their creators but I would guess > that +/-75% of all Euphoria Windows programs were written with Win32Lib. > > Derek your efforts are appreciated here and if you go ... (breaks down > sobbing) ... then ... (sob) ... you'll certainly be missed! > > Jonas Temple > <a href="http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple">http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple</a> > I second what Jonas said. Regards, Marc
21. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 19, 2004
- 694 views
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:09:27 +0000, Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >You just want your $79 from every person in the chain, and then we can >do what we like. Sounds fair play to me. One last thing, before anyone jumps on me. If you create an application as opposed to an interpreter, the end users do not have to pay a fee, though you may have to distribute it bound because of the restriction on redistributing myexw.exe (if, that is, it uses any new language features you have devised) Regards, Pete
22. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 686 views
Jonas Temple wrote: > Tommy Carlier wrote: > > Derek Parnell wrote: > > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > I wish you all the luck in the world. > Wish him luck!?!?!? We should be BEGGING him to stay! BEG him to stay?! We should be FORCING him to stay! Derek, if you leave, we'll hunt you down and mercilessly... uh... tickle you until you repent of your wicked leaving ways. :P > > The community won't be the same without you. That's for sure. Fewer badly-worded and managed contests. Less having to wait months for a new Win32Lib release. More infrequent babblings about uh... well, i guess he never babbles, really. :P > Derek your efforts are appreciated here and if you go ... (breaks down > sobbing) ... then ... (sob) ... you'll certainly be missed! <handing Jonas a tissue> -=ck "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA." http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/ P.S. Derek, you know I'm joking and that I find your contributions to the Euphoria community far beyond valuable. I know you are very passionate about your desires for what you want Euphoria to be. Hopefully, you'll reconsider and stay to continue to make Euphoria all it can be. If not, I too wish you the best of luck. And tell me, just curious, what language will you then choose to use?
23. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Mario Steele <eumario at trilake.net> Nov 19, 2004
- 681 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > Pete Lomax wrote: > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > > > > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. > > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling > > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for > > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways > > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better > > decision when some people actually start to do something with > > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better > > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. > > If what they want to do is take full control of the source, > > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put > > me out of business, they'll have a long wait. > > Rob, I think we understand your concern, however, I don't think anyone > has properly articulated what they're asking for. We can currently > examine the PD front end and see the guts of il code and the symbol > table. What we don't have is a way of turning that into an il file > that the backend can execute. > > What I think is being asked for is basically a breaking up of bind.il, > so that instead of it compiling the il, it takes this as input, and then > does the magic shrouding and whatnot. I suppose you could call it an > il translator. > > Basically, you'd have to specify an input format for a pre-il file, > including anything that's needed from the front end, and then your > code puts it into the format that the backend needs. You could sell > this as part of the binding feature, or even separately. Then people > could distribute their custom code as il files, but anyone who wanted to > use the custom language would need to buy your binding package. Spun > that way, it seems like a possible increase on the revenue stream. > Plus, of course, you could cherry pick what's out there for future > releases. > > It would give nearly immediate relief to those who have namespacing issues > (like what my modified interpreter addressed--if I can do it in C, then > I can *definitely* to it in Eu) or the include/cannonical paths issue. > > So, to summarize, I don't think it's really opening anything else up, > but it does give an extra incentive to buy the binding package, and the > binding process becomes a two step process. > > Matt Lewis > Hey all, No, it's not a illusion, I get back online, 3 days after 2.5a is released. WOOT! First off, I just have to give my thumbs up to RobC for the work he has done. It looks exceptionally good. Now, onto more matters, that actually deal with the thread at question. I know, alot of people's gripes, and such on this subject, and I first want to start off by defending RobC. I don't know if many of you realize this or not, but Robert has tooken a big ass leap from 2.4 to 2.5, and no one has come to terms with appreciating this. I'm not placing blame on anyone here, I'm just pointing out the ovious. Putting in full trace support on the Public Domain Version of Euphoria, Increasing the speed and compatability of Euphoria, to possibly offer versions on diffrent OS' (Mac is still one I want to see it on), and even putting out a Open Source, full version of the Interpreter code, for anyone to see, use, hack, slash, dice, and slice, then call it thier own, is one tremendous leap forward. But, at the same time, I do agree, with alot of you, about the restrictions that still are implaced apon the language. And I think Matt has provided a more clear explination to what the users want. And I'm gonna to clerify this to a more certian extent, at which even Rob can appreciate the possibilities that can come from doing this kind of deal. As Matt has suggested, there is room to create a Euphoria To IL Tool, in which Euphoria code, is fed to the system, to create IL Code. This method is the best, and most suitable causes for anyone here. I don't think anyone here, can honestly say, they want to see the hard code facts of every peice of the IL Specification. If I am wrong, please, speak up. On the other hand, addressing Rob's fear that it would cut into his profits, I would only like to say this. Imagine if you would Rob, that one of us creates a Off Bread language, or hybrid. For example, Let's say, I want to make a Euphoria and BASIC Hybrid. Diffrent Syntax, and such, with my own way of working things out. I can build off of what euphoria offers right now, with the PD Eu Version of the Interpreter, and make my own scheme for binding files, and such. Unfortunatly, this also means, that as you have said in the release notes, it would be slower then your Euphoria Interpreter. But, if we use the previous suggestion, of creating a Intermediate Euphoria to IL Converter, we bring forth a new way to improve things. For you see, if I create this EuBASIC language, and say someone wants it, get's it, and wants to compile programs, to run at fastest speeds, then they can go back to RDS, and get the Binder System, in which to bind the EuIL Code, to the backend, and make a Executable. Because of this, the language relies soely on Euphoria to make executables, as well as it's own code. Now, to some, this may seem like a pre-proccess language, but, in truth of it all, Euphoria itself, is a pre-process language, so is C/C++, and any other language out there. Before the code can be run, it has to be compiled down into Byte Wise Code, weither it be by pre-interpretation, or be it from run time interpretation. The only thing extra, in this hole deal, would be the conversion of whatever syntax someone decides to use, into Euphoria type syntax. Which euphoria then turns into IL Code, for use with the Backend. It's only adding a extra step to the allready well established chain of events to making a program. It would actually be doing, what C/C++ does allready, as Matt pointed out with Linking. And you don't see C/C++ Hurting all to much. Personally, I belive.... no, change that to I know..... that doing something of this sort, would not be taking away from income that you get on Euphoria now Robert, infact, you could look at it this way, that it would actually be putting Euphoria out there, with more flexable features for the user, and still comes back to you, in any event. As one wise man once said, `Reap your harvest, but be sure to pay your workers well.` Think about it. L8ers, Mario
24. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 678 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > Derek Parnell wrote: > > I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > I wish you all the luck in the world. You've been one of the greatest > contributors, and an inspiration to us all. Very true. Hey! I think I'll start a "Euphoria Hall-of-Fame!" That would be fun. Maybe. :/ Here's who's in it so far (not in any particular order): Rob Craig (duh!) David Cuny Jiri Babor Matt Lewis Derek Parnell Ralf Niewnejuaneufsen :) Judith Evans You know what... I can't do this. There's too many and I'm sure I'd forget somebody very important. Let's vote on it! Tommy, sounds like you need to up the release date on that Win4Eu stuff. Or, Irv and Matthew, get to work on stabilizing and documenting your cross-platform windowing GUIs. (Just noticed that Matt has a new IDE! I'm checking that out as I type. :) ) -=ck "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA." http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
25. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> Nov 19, 2004
- 656 views
cklester wrote: > Tommy, sounds like you need to up the release date on that Win4Eu stuff. I have a working version. With 'working version', I mean: you can create the following types of Controls: - Window There is no documentation yet, except the few comments in the code. I could release it, but it wouldn't be very impressive. It also wouldn't be very useful for most people. -- Recycle your pets. tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
26. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 690 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > > There is no documentation yet, except the few comments in the code. > I could release it, but it wouldn't be very impressive. It also wouldn't > be very useful for most people. Are you still on schedule to release a documented, impressive, useful version by December 25th, 2004? Merry Christmas!!! :) -=ck "Programming in a state of Euphoria." http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
27. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 730 views
Pete Lomax wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:09:27 +0000, Pete Lomax > <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >You just want your $79 from every person in the chain, and then we can > >do what we like. Sounds fair play to me. > > One last thing, before anyone jumps on me. If you create an > application as opposed to an interpreter, the end users do not have to > pay a fee, though you may have to distribute it bound because of the > restriction on redistributing myexw.exe (if, that is, it uses any new > language features you have devised) > Actually, Pete, you will NOT BE ABLE TO BIND IT (if it uses new features). That is the point I am making. If you make new features, there is NO WAY TO USE THEM IF YOU WANT TO CREATE EXECUTABLES. Seems pretty silly.
28. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> Nov 19, 2004
- 709 views
cklester wrote: > Tommy Carlier wrote: > > There is no documentation yet, except the few comments in the code. > > I could release it, but it wouldn't be very impressive. It also wouldn't > > be very useful for most people. > > Are you still on schedule to release a documented, impressive, useful > version by December 25th, 2004? Merry Christmas!!! :) I never gave anybody a release date, or even thought about one. December 25th would be a nice release date, but I don't think that would be a realistic date. Especially if you're expecting an IMPRESSIVE version. A useful version, with the basic controls and functionality might be released this year, but for the impressiveness (data-binding, extended graphics, advanced controls, enhanced layout functionality, ...) you'll have to wait a bit longer. -- Recycle your pets. tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
29. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 684 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > cklester wrote: > > Tommy Carlier wrote: > > > There is no documentation yet, except the few comments in the code. > > > I could release it, but it wouldn't be very impressive. It also wouldn't > > > be very useful for most people. > > Are you still on schedule to release a documented, impressive, useful > > version by December 25th, 2004? Merry Christmas!!! :) > I never gave anybody a release date, or even thought about one. :D Well, I asked Santa Claus for it!!! And he better deliver. :P (I know you haven't given a release date. I was just pushin' ya. :) ) -=ck "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA." http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
30. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Unkmar" <L3Euphoria at bellsouth.net> Nov 19, 2004
- 666 views
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonas Temple" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: Re: .il code/file questions > > > posted by: Jonas Temple <jtemple at yhti.net> > > Tommy Carlier wrote: >> > There are only a handful of people who would be able to take over > Win32Lib (myself not included) and I fear if you leave it will die! > >> The community won't be the same without you. > > I wholeheartedly agree. Let's face it...without Win32Lib most of the Eu > newbies would run away scared. I realize there are other Windows > libraries and certainly "hats off" to their creators but I would guess > that +/-75% of all Euphoria Windows programs were written with Win32Lib. That is one of the very reasons he should leave. Go ahead, bite the hand that has been feeding you. It has been poisoning you the entire time. "I beleive that" He has just now realized that the meal is poisoned. "I believe that" He know longer wants to perpetuate the process. unkmar PS: I have never had any use for Win32lib but I can easily see where it will be a great loss. I don't want anyone to lose such a talented programmer. I also don't want a talented programmer wasting their talent. - Read what you want into that last sentence.
31. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 19, 2004
- 697 views
Pete Lomax wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:29:46 -0800, Robert Craig > <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote: > > >Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. > The point is the words that you use, not that you necessarily offer > anything radically different. Please correct me if I am wrong: > > The new eu.ex is open source. I can modify it and distribute it as I > please (but it's a tad slow). Yes. In fact it's more than just "open source". For example, the popular GNU license forces you to make your changes open. This PD source has no restrictions like that. You can make an open or closed source and/or commercial program and sell it for a million dollars. > Assuming I don't modify execute.e, then if I purchase the source, it's > a simple thing to create a full-featured (bar legacy shrouded code > support), full speed interpreter (say myexw.exe). Yes, for private use, not wide distribution. I can imagine some company needing/wanting to make a small change to Euphoria. This would allow them to do so, possibly saving thousands of dollars of effort for $79. Most (90%?) of the people who previously purchased the source product had no intention of widely distributing modified versions of Euphoria. Obviously, on this mailing list there are several people with the publicly-stated intention, and past history, of trying to develop Euphoria-like languages regardless of the effect that has on RDS's bottom line. ...I know, I know, you all want the best for Euphoria. You want to selflessly lead the Euphoria community to the "promised land". You don't want to put RDS out of business. You just want to clone Euphoria and distribute it free, at full speed, with open source, to all comers. > I can send myexw.exe to you, and it will or will not appear in the > archive at your discretion. Yes. If it provides some benefit to those who are using *Euphoria*, I'll probably post it. > Now, despite having purchased the source, I'm still at liberty to > distribute the PD bits I modified, but not myexw.exe (which is the > main change to the 2.5 license) Yes you can distribute the PD stuff. > I am allowed to tell people where to buy the source. > I can supply instructions for recreating myexw.exe, or, if someone can > prove they have purchased the source, I can send them myexw.exe. > > As I re-read the new source license, it dawns upon me that maybe this > is what you meant all along. > > It all now seems a lot more reasonable to me. > > You just want your $79 from every person in the chain, and then we can > do what we like. Sounds fair play to me. Yes, you can work with others on the source and you can give your version of Euphoria to others, e.g. people who have contracted with you to do a special app, but everyone must pay $79 for a source license. > One last thing, before anyone jumps on me. If you create an > application as opposed to an interpreter, the end users do not have to > pay a fee, though you may have to distribute it bound because of the > restriction on redistributing myexw.exe (if, that is, it uses any new > language features you have devised) I don't think that's spelled out explicitly, but the license does not say you can distribute executables in bound or packaged form without the $79/person rule kicking in. Nor does it say you can build/distribute something other than an interpreter and avoid the $79 rule. Of course the rules are completely different if you want to port Euphoria to a new platform that it doesn't already run on. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
32. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Nov 19, 2004
- 688 views
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:16:50 -0800, Andy Serpa <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote: >Actually, Pete, you will NOT BE ABLE TO BIND IT (if it uses new >features). That is the point I am making. If you make new features, >there is NO WAY TO USE THEM IF YOU WANT TO CREATE EXECUTABLES. Seems >pretty silly. Ah, the penny drops. If that isn't changed, the wonderful new open source front end is indeed pointless. Regards, Pete
33. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Ken Orr <orr_kenneth at yahoo.ca> Nov 20, 2004
- 687 views
Robert Craig wrote: > > The Source Code product lets you make any changes you like, > to either the front end, or the back-end. The only "catch" > is that the interpreter you create must be for your own use. > You can't distribute it to the world (unless it runs on a new > platform). I suppose that Would rule out foreign languages versions also (i.e. Portuguese, Russian, French, etc). Eh? > The Public Domain source lets anyone in the world, for free, > make any changes they like to the way the Euphoria interpreter works. > The only "catch" is that it runs slower than > the official interpreter. Translating it helps, but it's > still slower. Can I distribute an application and/or interpreter baased on modified Public Domain eu source or that is out too? Ken
34. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 20, 2004
- 676 views
Ken Orr wrote: > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > The Source Code product lets you make any changes you like, > > to either the front end, or the back-end. The only "catch" > > is that the interpreter you create must be for your own use. > > You can't distribute it to the world (unless it runs on a new > > platform). > > I suppose that Would rule out foreign languages versions also (i.e. > Portuguese, Russian, > French, etc). Eh? That would be a good example where someone could send me their modified interpreter and I would be happy to post it on the RDS web site for all to use. > > The Public Domain source lets anyone in the world, for free, > > make any changes they like to the way the Euphoria interpreter works. > > The only "catch" is that it runs slower than > > the official interpreter. Translating it helps, but it's > > still slower. > > Can I distribute an application and/or interpreter baased on modified Public > Domain > eu source or > that is out too? You can do *anything* with the PD source. It's Public Domain. You have the same rights to it as I do. You can modify it in any way. You can translate it. You can bind it. You can sell it. You can close source it. You can open source it. You can try to make a competitive product from it. You don't even have to acknowledge RDS as the author (though that would be a bit rude). Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
35. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 20, 2004
- 691 views
codepilot Gmail Account wrote: > Let me see here for a moment whats going on, just to see if I properly > understand it all. > 2.5 is > 1. Addition of $ shorthand > 2. front end euphoria parser Public Domain > 3. New Backend.exe and BACKENDW.EXE thingies 4. The front end is not only Public Domain but also Open Source now (very instructive)! 5. A bound program can now provide a complete ex.err dump! 6. The internal changes make maintainance and adding new features much easier for RDS. 7. Compiler optimizations (probably due to the internal changes). ... > Ok, now 1 is well understood. > 2, the front end being PD is good, but can't be changed and still be > able to bind/translate output bad, i guess change=slow eueu thing. > 3, totally not understanding purpose, I guess there for binding too, > but why are the in the public package if they can't be used without > Registering? No, 'backend.exe' is not for binding, but for running "shrouded" files ("shrouding" means something different for 2.5 than for versions < 2.5). Say I bought the 2.5 binder/shrouder, and I put a "shrouded" program 'coolprog.il' on the User Contributions page. Then you need 'backend.exe' to run that program, that's why it is in the public package. See 'bind.htm' for details. Although prediction is difficult, especially about the future , I think that the number of "shrouded" contributions (in addition to their respective source code) might increase. This is because source code programs now start up (sometimes significantly) *slower* than with Eu 2.4, while bound/shrouded programs now start up *faster* than with Eu 2.4. Eu 2.4 also has a (sometimes significant) difference in startup time between source code programs and bound/shrouded programs. This difference has increased in Eu 2.5. So if I contribute a huge Eu 2.5 program, and want also newbies (who probably don't have the binder/shrouder themselves) to be able run it, then I'll contribute that program in bound/shrouded form. > Perhaps I'm totally confused, so get your marketing people to start a > consumer education program, or clearly outline these things somewhere, > please. > > Daniel > PS. I'm really happy that euphoria is taking some major steps, I just > can't quite tell where it's going. <snipped old text> Regards, Juergen
36. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 20, 2004
- 707 views
Me wrote: <snip> > Eu 2.4 also has a (sometimes significant) difference in startup time > between source code programs and bound/shrouded programs. This > difference has increased in Eu 2.5. So if I contribute a huge Eu 2.5 > program, and want also newbies (who probably don't have the > binder/shrouder themselves) to be able run it, I was meaning: "... to be able to run it nicely ..." > then I'll contribute > that program in bound/shrouded form. <snip> BTW, Rob: Can we do something like
include cool_lib.il
? Regards, Juergen
37. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 20, 2004
- 718 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > Derek Parnell wrote: >> It's confirmed: I've am a moron. Sorry. >> >> I kept thinking that RDS would be reasonable, but I'm wasting my time here. >> >> I'll tidy up Win32lib and complete the contest, then I'm gone. > > I wish you all the luck in the world. You've been one of the greatest > contributors, and an inspiration to us all. You've encouraged people to > create programs, you've dedicated a lot of time and effort to Win32Lib, > which has grown a lot lately, with many new marvelous features. > I really feel the Euphoria community could use more people like you, > who are not afraid to tell what they think, but who are always honest > and trying to help others. > The community won't be the same without you. I wholeheartedly agree to your words, Tommy. Derek, maybe you want to reconsider your decision? Pleeeeeeeease. Regards, Juergen -- |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
38. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Nov 20, 2004
- 700 views
Juergen Luethje wrote: > BTW, Rob: > Can we do something like > > }}} <eucode> > include cool_lib.il > </eucode> {{{ > > ? No. Not yet. There aren't as many people wanting to make shrouded libraries, as there are wanting to make bound or shrouded programs, so I've put that aside for the time being. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
39. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 21, 2004
- 709 views
Andy Serpa wrote: > Robert Craig wrote: >> >> Pete Lomax wrote: >>> Am I missing something here? >> >> Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. >> >> At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. >> I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling >> the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for >> a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways >> of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better >> decision when some people actually start to do something with >> the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better >> by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. >> If what they want to do is take full control of the source, >> add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put >> me out of business, they'll have a long wait. <snip> > Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents > length(this sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some > other stuff like that to cut down on my own typing. So I modify the > front-end to add some new shorthand. For instance, maybe I'd have: > > s &&= x > > be equivalent to: s = append(s,x). > > And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this: > > integer x = 4. > > Just basic pre-processor type stuff. > > Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because > now I can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. The latter is right, but that doesn't mean you can't use them at all. When you change eu.ex, then you have your own modified Euphoria interpreter. Using the Eu 2.5 translator, you can produce a standalone eu.exe program from it. Please don't get me wrong. I understand that you (and probably most of us) want that their modified front-end is able to produce IL code, that will be executed by the fast official 'backend.exe'. I just wanted to point the above out, because I think we should be precise, in order not to increase the current confusion here. > So if I can't even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting > to add more complex new features (new functions, built-in support for > external libraries, etc.) is also out of the question. > > So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your > binder or translator still in order to do the binding or translating? > Your .il format can remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the > problem? I believe this could be a problem: Say you create a fancy Eu front-end, that produces official IL code. When you buy the binder, than you can make your own Euphoria interpreter, that is as fast as the official interpreter, but has additional features. This is threatening RDS, no? *Only you* have to buy the binder, the users of your interpreter will not have to do so, like currently (and in the past) no Eu user had to buy the binder. A solution for RDS IMHO could be to make the license of the binder similar to the license of the source code product: You are only allowed to give your modified interpreter to people, who registered the binder. Does that make sense? I'm not sure whether or not I'm also confused by all this stuff. > You keep talking about people releasing enhanced versions of > the language itself, but anyone CAN ALREADY DO THAT by buying the > source from you (and breaking the license, of course). This would be illegal. > How is this a new or different threat? *If* my above considerations apply (what I actually don't know), then that could be threatening, no? The existence of illegal threats is no reason for deliberately adding legal threats. Regards, Juergen -- Have you read a good program lately?
40. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 21, 2004
- 662 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > Robert Craig wrote: >> >> Pete Lomax wrote: >>> Am I missing something here? >> >> Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point. >> >> At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot. >> I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling >> the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for >> a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways >> of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better >> decision when some people actually start to do something with >> the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better >> by that time what they can do, and what they want to do. >> If what they want to do is take full control of the source, >> add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put >> me out of business, they'll have a long wait. > > Rob, I think we understand your concern, however, I don't think anyone > has properly articulated what they're asking for. We can currently > examine the PD front end and see the guts of il code and the symbol > table. What we don't have is a way of turning that into an il file > that the backend can execute. > > What I think is being asked for is basically a breaking up of bind.il, > so that instead of it compiling the il, it takes this as input, and then > does the magic shrouding and whatnot. I suppose you could call it an > il translator. > > Basically, you'd have to specify an input format for a pre-il file, > including anything that's needed from the front end, and then your > code puts it into the format that the backend needs. You could sell > this as part of the binding feature, or even separately. Then people > could distribute their custom code as il files, but anyone who wanted to > use the custom language would need to buy your binding package. But when people distribute their custom code as EXE files (modified standalone Euphoria interpreter), things will look different, if I'm not too much confused. So maybe the license should only allow to distribute such "customized interpreters" in the form of IL files. > Spun > that way, it seems like a possible increase on the revenue stream. > Plus, of course, you could cherry pick what's out there for future > releases. > > It would give nearly immediate relief to those who have namespacing issues > (like what my modified interpreter addressed--if I can do it in C, then > I can *definitely* to it in Eu) or the include/cannonical paths issue. > > So, to summarize, I don't think it's really opening anything else up, > but it does give an extra incentive to buy the binding package, and the > binding process becomes a two step process. That sounds good to me. If it works, both sides (RDS as well as their customers) would have a benefit. Regards, Juergen -- Have you read a good program lately?
41. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com> Nov 21, 2004
- 697 views
Juergen Luethje wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > Basically, you'd have to specify an input format for a pre-il file, > > including anything that's needed from the front end, and then your > > code puts it into the format that the backend needs. You could sell > > this as part of the binding feature, or even separately. Then people > > could distribute their custom code as il files, but anyone who wanted to > > use the custom language would need to buy your binding package. > > But when people distribute their custom code as EXE files (modified > standalone Euphoria interpreter), things will look different, if I'm not > too much confused. So maybe the license should only allow to distribute > such "customized interpreters" in the form of IL files. Er...not exactly. What I'm suggesting is that, as part of the binding package (or perhaps even separately), Rob provides an analog to bind.il. It takes il code in an "unshrouded" format. This could be as simple as (from within the modified front end):
il_file = open( file_name, "w" ) print( il_file, il_code ) print( il_file, symtab ) close(il_file)
Now, instead of bind.il running the frontend on regular Eu source, it takes the il file and does whatever shrouding it would normally do, and/or bind it to backend.exe. The person who does this will have to own the binder (just like right now). Anyone else can run the bound or shrouded code, because it works with backend.exe. Anyone who wants to actually work with the modified front end (i.e., its extensions or new syntax or whatever) would need to buy the binder from Rob. There's no new licensing issues. Matt Lewis
42. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Nov 21, 2004
- 687 views
On 20 Nov 2004, at 16:56, Robert Craig wrote: > > > posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> > > Juergen Luethje wrote: > > BTW, Rob: > > Can we do something like > > > > }}} <eucode> > > include cool_lib.il > > </eucode> {{{ > > > > ? > > No. Not yet. > There aren't as many people wanting to make shrouded > libraries, as there are wanting to make bound or shrouded programs, > so I've put that aside for the time being. It's not so much a matter of a shrouded include as a pre-parsed include to save startup time! Kat
43. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 21, 2004
- 686 views
Kat wrote: > On 20 Nov 2004, at 16:56, Robert Craig wrote: > >> Juergen Luethje wrote: >>> BTW, Rob: >>> Can we do something like >>> >>> }}} <eucode> >>> include cool_lib.il >>> </eucode> {{{ >>> >>> ? >> >> No. Not yet. >> There aren't as many people wanting to make shrouded >> libraries, as there are wanting to make bound or shrouded programs, >> so I've put that aside for the time being. > > It's not so much a matter of a shrouded include as a pre-parsed include > to save startup time! > > Kat Absolutely! And I asked the question in exactly that context (which Rob had snipped). Currently, using the Eu 2.5 alpha interpreter, the startup time e.g. for several Win32Lib demo programs is unbearable for me. Yes, my PC is older than 3 years, but everything except of Eu 2.5 alpha runs fine here, and buying a new PC just for Eu 2.5 alpha would mean "a little" too high price for the upgrade. The only ways that I see to solve this problem is, to significantly reduce the parsing time of the new interpreter front-end, or to make it possible, that pre-parsed code (= IL files) can be included -- maybe with a new keyword such as "link" rather than "include"? Regards, Juergen
44. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com> Nov 21, 2004
- 689 views
Juergen Luethje wrote: > Absolutely! And I asked the question in exactly that context (which Rob > had snipped). Currently, using the Eu 2.5 alpha interpreter, the startup > time e.g. for several Win32Lib demo programs is unbearable for me. > Yes, my PC is older than 3 years, but everything except of Eu 2.5 alpha > runs fine here, and buying a new PC just for Eu 2.5 alpha would mean > "a little" too high price for the upgrade. > > The only ways that I see to solve this problem is, to significantly > reduce the parsing time of the new interpreter front-end, or to make it > possible, that pre-parsed code (= IL files) can be included -- maybe > with a new keyword such as "link" rather than "include"? Juergen: This is my biggest and only objection to ver. 2.5. We donate our time to write large usefull programs and libraries and RDS defeats all our efforts and time spent by coming out with a product that completely disregards our work. I have built my w32engin.ew library so that a user only needs to include this single library with NO EXTRA include file to build any windows program. It can run win32lib code or "C" style windows code and can be easily extended. A user with the public domain version is not going want to use any library that takes forever to load and parse. RDS's answer to the snail speed loading problem is to break it up into pieces and use seperate files depending on what the user wants to use it for. I don't think I should have to code my libraries to correct for a problem that was created by RDS. Whats wrong with RDS solving the real problem ? Users of Euphoria are from a world-wide user base and some of them may not have the money to pay 80 dollars for the source or buy a fast computer just to run Euphoria at a reasonable speed. It will be just a matter of time when someone that has ver 2.3 or 2.4 source will decide to write their own back-end by looking at the source and emulating the back-end. RDS will then lose control of a good programming langauge; who wants to see 1500 different versions of Euphoria out there. Not me. I only want to see one version of Euphoria that works properly that has one developer that listens to my requests which I am willing to pay for. Bernie My files in archive: w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew Can be downloaded here: http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
45. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by sixs <sixs at ida.net> Nov 22, 2004
- 695 views
Hello, <cid:part1.00090300.01070909 at ida.net> I am looking at this program listing and I see win32lib as the include statement. I thought your programs didn't need win32lib or am i confused? for instant: W32TBAR.EXW <cid:part1.00090300.01070909 at ida.net> Jim Bernie Ryan wrote: > > >posted by: Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com> > >Juergen Luethje wrote: > > >>Absolutely! And I asked the question in exactly that context (which Rob >>had snipped). Currently, using the Eu 2.5 alpha interpreter, the startup >>time e.g. for several Win32Lib demo programs is unbearable for me. >>Yes, my PC is older than 3 years, but everything except of Eu 2.5 alpha >>runs fine here, and buying a new PC just for Eu 2.5 alpha would mean >>"a little" too high price for the upgrade. >> >>The only ways that I see to solve this problem is, to significantly >>reduce the parsing time of the new interpreter front-end, or to make it >>possible, that pre-parsed code (= IL files) can be included -- maybe >>with a new keyword such as "link" rather than "include"? >> >> >Juergen: > >This is my biggest and only objection to ver. 2.5. >We donate our time to write large usefull programs and libraries >and RDS defeats all our efforts and time spent by coming out with >a product that completely disregards our work. > >I have built my w32engin.ew library so that a user only needs >to include this single library with NO EXTRA include file >to build any windows program. It can run win32lib code or >"C" style windows code and can be easily extended. > >A user with the public domain version is not going want to >use any library that takes forever to load and parse. > >RDS's answer to the snail speed loading problem is to break it >up into pieces and use seperate files depending on what the >user wants to use it for. I don't think I should have to code >my libraries to correct for a problem that was created by RDS. > >Whats wrong with RDS solving the real problem ? > >Users of Euphoria are from a world-wide user base and some >of them may not have the money to pay 80 dollars for the >source or buy a fast computer just to run Euphoria at a >reasonable speed. > >It will be just a matter of time when someone that has >ver 2.3 or 2.4 source will decide to write their own back-end >by looking at the source and emulating the back-end. >RDS will then lose control of a good programming langauge; >who wants to see 1500 different versions of Euphoria out >there. Not me. > >I only want to see one version of Euphoria that works >properly that has one developer that listens to my >requests which I am willing to pay for. > >Bernie > >My files in archive: >w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew > >Can be downloaded here: >>http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan > > > >
46. Re: .il code/file questions
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com> Nov 22, 2004
- 668 views
sixs wrote: > > Hello, <cid:part1.00090300.01070909 at ida.net> > I am looking at this program listing and I see win32lib as the include > statement. I thought your programs didn't need win32lib or am i > confused? for instant: > W32TBAR.EXW <cid:part1.00090300.01070909 at ida.net> > Jim: You are confused. win32eru.exw is a separate program for using resources in the win32lib enviorment. w32tbar.exw is a demo in for that program. There is ALSO a program called ERU.exw that comes with my w32engin.ew library which DOES NOT use the win32lib but is a seperate library. This library also has the TBAR demo for this library. This library was the one I was talking about. Bernie My files in archive: w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.ew Can be downloaded here: http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan