1. RE: For Chris Bensler
Alan Oxley wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Alan Oxley <fizzpop at icon.co.za>
>
> Can you tone it down a bit please?
> IMHO, Euphoria can be improved; personally I have always used Kat's
> solution for the include problem, but its possible that there are better
> methods. Just because I don't agree with someone, does not qualify me
> to remark on someone else's supposed IQ.
>
> Eventually, we will vote with our checkbooks. I'm sure Rob is aware of
> that.
> I too have made suggestions which have not (yet?) been implemented;
> so have many others.
>
> BTW, I do software support for a living for the last 20 + years, and
> AFAIK if you paid for product X at version Y, then you get support for
> product X at version Y. Particularly if you were given trial versions
> before paying.
> Demanding new features is not what you have paid for, again IMHO.
> That does not stop anyone asking and discussing though. Without this
> input there would never be new versions ;))
>
>
> Cheers
> Alan
You are absolutely right Alan. I'll try.
However, I'm entitled to my opinion. That's the beauty of free speech.
And my opinion is not based on the fact that he ignores my suggestions,
but because he ignores ALL suggestions.
He can only say "I have it on my list of feature requests" so many
times, before I think he is full of crap. He is pulling the wool over
our eyes, as far as I'm concerned. I have my doubts that he even keeps
records of the various requests people make.
He won't provide any kind of development plans. He does virtually no
alpha or beta testing. And he doesn't even CONFER with his consumers
about the changes he is considering making.
He doesn't even provide a compilation of the most significant feature
requests.
MANY, many people have offered to assist him, for FREE, and he refuses
any kind of help.
Now does that sound like someone who is very intelligent?
Does that sound like someone who cares what his customers want?
Unfortunately, your checkbook doesn't mean much to RDS, when there is a
new and gullible user to take your place. Besides, what's going to
happen to Euphoria if RDS keeps up with their cherade, and all the Eu
users give it up. Then there won't be a Euphoria. That's what will
happen.
I like Euphoria. While I do not like RDS. I think Euphoria has the
potential to be one of the best languages available. To see it go down
in flames, because this community doesn't want to ruffle feathers and
because RDS is ignorant, does not go well with me.
If the 'value' of it's customers were important, than RDS would be
listening in the first place. There have been dozens upon dozens of
excellent programmers that I have been sad to see leave Euphoria,
because they gave up trying to do their unobliged duty as citizens of
this community, and bring issues to the table that affects everyone who
uses Euphoria. And Robert Craig brushes us off like flies. That
infuriates me.
But why should RDS care? Everytime one experienced person leaves, a new
and inexperienced person takes their place. RDS gets to mold that person
however they want. It will take at least a year for the new user to
start complaining, so RDS can at least buy time.
> AFAIK if you paid for product X at version Y, then you get support for
> product X at version Y. Particularly if you were given trial versions
> before paying.
Since you put it that way. I consider bug fixes to be a part of the
version they were implemented in.
Where's my bug fixes for v2.2 and v2.3?
My only option is to buy the next versions, and accept his useless
features, and he doesn't even fix the existing problems.
What kind of support is that?
If he will fix the bugs in the prior versions, then I wouldn't even
bother considering using the newer versions, as would many others I'm
sure. And I think he knows that.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
2. RE: For Chris Bensler
Thanks Chris!
I agree, a common theme is the lack of communication from Rob,
as per your post. However, if a detailed roadmap was forthcoming would
that not invite more dissent, since we all have our own ideas of the
perfect Euphoria?
What I WOULD like, is a webpage where we could vote on proposed enhancements
with Rob giving his undertaking to implement the most requested ones
as a matter of policy in the next release.
Rob has been unequivocal on the "goto" though, "not for a million dollars"
if I remember correctly, so I guess this tells us that he considers
Euphoria as his baby firstly and as a commercial product second.
I quote that as an attitude example, I don't want to start another "goto"
flamewar!
The proposed improvements from 2.4 to 2.5 appear to be of benefit to Rob,
and not significant for the customers (IMHO). If that's the case
then I won't be upgrading, on principle. And I have been a customer
since v1.4 . But I'll test first.
I think it rather unlikely that Rob does not test new releases. If that
was the case, the new release would be out, yes? Past releases had few
problems before they went GA(Official).
My interpretation of a bug is when the program does not work as designed
(and documented). You agree? Is that the case here (no pun intended).
Regards
Alan
3. RE: For Chris Bensler
Alan Oxley wrote:
> I agree, a common theme is the lack of communication from Rob,
> as per your post. However, if a detailed roadmap was forthcoming would
> that not invite more dissent, since we all have our own ideas of the
> perfect Euphoria?
On one hand, I would say yes. Given RDS's history of complete disregard
for his patrons, it is probably in his best interest NOT to have one.
Which is precisely the reason I think he doesn't.
On the other hand, giving Rob the benefit of the doubt, that if there
were an organized account of previous feature requests, and design
suggestions, along with rebuttals, supplying pros and cons. I think we
would find that most issues can be dismissed before they even leave the
nest. The others will stand out like a sore thumb, and will have to be
dealt with.
> What I WOULD like, is a webpage where we could vote on proposed
> enhancements
> with Rob giving his undertaking to implement the most requested ones
> as a matter of policy in the next release.
> Rob has been unequivocal on the "goto" though, "not for a million
> dollars"
> if I remember correctly, so I guess this tells us that he considers
> Euphoria as his baby firstly and as a commercial product second.
> I quote that as an attitude example, I don't want to start another
> "goto"
> flamewar!
I've begun the Empire website ( http://empire.iwireweb.com ), to address
such shortcomings of RDS.
There will be methods put in place to organize community opinion into a
collective summation, where Rob could then pick thru the cream of the
crop.
Of course, that would still be up to him.
> The proposed improvements from 2.4 to 2.5 appear to be of benefit to
> Rob,
> and not significant for the customers (IMHO). If that's the case
> then I won't be upgrading, on principle. And I have been a customer
> since v1.4 . But I'll test first.
As far as I know, the only improvements being made, other than internal
source changes, and some bug fixes, is the $ operator, and
crash_routine().
Those 2 things are worthy of being implemented, but they aren't worth
having to pay for a whole new version, IMO.
Oh yeah, and the Eu in Eu interpreter, which will be public domain.
Didn't David Cuny already make one of those, quite a few years ago?
> I think it rather unlikely that Rob does not test new releases. If that
> was the case, the new release would be out, yes? Past releases had few
> problems before they went GA(Official).
Testing a product meant for public uses, by a sole tester is not what I
call alpha and beta testing.
> My interpretation of a bug is when the program does not work as designed
> (and documented). You agree? Is that the case here (no pun intended).
Yes, that is the case.
here is a list of the 'bug fixes' implemented into 2.4, carried over
from 2.3:
bug fixed : On Windows, using the Interpreter, or a Translated program,
you were sometimes required to hit Enter twice to exit from a console
window. Thanks to Tone Skoda.
bug fixed: You can now declare a namespace identifier with the same name
as a built-in function, without causing a lot of errors. Thanks to
Martin Stachon (although he recommended a different solution).
bug fixed - Binder: Support for the new EUINC environment variable has
now been added to the binder. Thanks to Ross Boyd.
bug fixed - Binder: Appending resource files to a bound .exe didn't work
correctly when bind -clear was used. Thanks to Wolfgang Fritz.
bug fixed - Binder: When using the binder interactively, you would get a
"variable not initialized" error when trying to substitute a different
Windows icon. Thanks to Tony Steward.
bug fixed - Binder: In some cases the keyword "constant" would be
dropped from the shrouded output, when the previous line of input had a
constant declaration ending in ']'. Thanks to Ross Boyd.
bug fixed - Binder: When a general expression, (not just a string in
quotes), was used as the argument to routine_id(), local routines that
were potentially the target of that expression, might have their names
changed (unless -clear was used), thus causing routine_id() to return -1
at run-time. Global routines were ok.
bug fixed - Binder: The binder/shrouder kept going even though an
include file was missing. Thanks to Ross Boyd.
bug fixed - Linux Binder: The Linux search path bug for bound
executables, supposedly fixed by the 2.3 alpha release, wasn't fixed
properly. Fixed now. Thanks to Ken Rhodes.
bug fixed - Linux Binder: bindu -clear and shroud -clear with a file
containing DOS/Windows-style \r\n line terminators gave you errors
"illegal character" when your shrouded program was run, and "not bound
correctly" when your bound file was run.
There is more too. That is only the 2.4 alpha fixes.
Furthermore, I did NOT pay for the translator or source code. I should
not have to wait for them to be updated, so that the product I pay for
can be updated as well. They are hardly a suite of products.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
