1. Back to Bach
Haven't been keeping up with Eu much recently. Am I correct in
understanding that Bach is dead?
Not that I could get it to run anyway, but I was very much interested in
trying it out - it had a couple of features I was very interested in
seeing in Eu.
One thing it did not have though, is the ability to bind to the Bach
interpreter. Was this a problem with the licensing of the source? Is it
necessarily fatal, IOW, isn't there some way of licensing that could be
worked out so that some variations of the Eu interpreter could be sold?
2. Re: Back to Bach
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Feb 19, 2003
On 19 Feb 2003, at 19:57, SR.Williamson wrote:
>
> Haven't been keeping up with Eu much recently. Am I correct in
> understanding that Bach is dead?
It's now known as BLISS.
Then that was discontinued too. I'd love to have the source, so i can see how
Karl did his magic, i have the official RDS source already.
Oh, there is now the OpenEu project, which i am not involved in.
> Not that I could get it to run anyway, but I was very much interested in
> trying it out - it had a couple of features I was very interested in
> seeing in Eu.
Me too!
Ditto for OpenEu, but while Karl quickly added the new stuff to Bach/Bliss,
the OpenEu project turned it all down flat. Maybe if you had suggested it to
them, SR.
> One thing it did not have though, is the ability to bind to the Bach
> interpreter. Was this a problem with the licensing of the source? Is it
> necessarily fatal, IOW, isn't there some way of licensing that could be
> worked out so that some variations of the Eu interpreter could be sold?
And with debugging, stepping thru code line by line with the interpreter, etc?
I still like the olde TurboPascal IDE.
Kat
3. Re: Back to Bach
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:37:47 -0600, <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Not that I could get it to run anyway, but I was very much interested in
>> trying it out - it had a couple of features I was very interested in
>> seeing in Eu.
>
> Me too!
> Ditto for OpenEu, but while Karl quickly added the new stuff to
> Bach/Bliss, the OpenEu project turned it all down flat. Maybe if you had
> suggested it to them, SR.
Hang on there, Kat. To the best of my knowledge, NOTHING has been turned
down! If I'm wrong, then let me know what you feel was refused and I'll
place them back on the agenda. It is WAY too early for anything to be
dismissed just yet.
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
4. Re: Back to Bach
- Posted by kbochert at copper.net
Feb 20, 2003
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
KAT wrote on 2/19/03 2:37:47 PM:
>It's now known as BLISS.
>Then that was discontinued too.
>
Actually it started as Bliss, then changed to Bach on the
discovery that there were several Bliss's already.
>I'd love to have the source, so i can see how
>Karl did his magic, i have the official RDS source already.
Given that development has ceased, I am now willing to give away
the source to purchasers of Bach. Unfortunately, I am uncertain how
to verify purchase of RDS source, securely transmit it, or what to
say in a license.
>And with debugging, stepping thru code line by line with the interpreter,
>etc=3F I still like the olde TurboPascal IDE.
>
I have, foolishly, begun sporadic work my own new interpreter. It will have
all new code, and while it was originally intended to be able to run
Euphoria programs, it has evolved into something substantially different.
( The moment you accept one incompatibiity, others flood in!).
It is tentatively named Bell (The icon is a 'not-equals' sign -- does
anyone know why=3F).
The addition of an IDE/Debugger is one of the prime reasons for taking
on this labor.
Karl
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
