1. For Chris Bensler
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
2. Re: For Chris Bensler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Oxley"
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: For Chris Bensler
>
> posted by: Alan Oxley
[snip]
> 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
>
That is the case. The subfolder bug was undocumented.
So instead of properly fixing it. He documented it. A cop out action.
unkmar
3. Re: For Chris Bensler
Chris,
you make a good argument. I've signed up on Empire but I still hope
Rob will attend to the issues.
The promised open source version will be interesting, WRT licencing.
Can Rob take user enhancements and include it in the official Euphoria?
Will this "completely compatible" version exclude the debugger, profiler
etc, the features that differentiate with the paid for version?
Anyway, Im going back to lurk mode.
Thanks again to Chris and unkmar for thier observations.
Cheers
Alan
