1. Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
- Posted by D. Newhall <derek_newhall at yahoo.com>
Jan 03, 2006
-
Last edited Jan 04, 2006
Vincent wrote:
>
> Before you get to excited, lets face it... RDS is *not* going to change the
> way Euphoria parses. We might get an additional small speed improvement in the
> next release, but in general, Euphoria won't ever parse quickly again on older
> systems.
*sigh* This is getting old.
How do you know Vincent? You always do this. You always claim that RDS won't
ever do something or must do something to survive. It is never like "RDS should
do this to boost sales", oh no, it's "there is no future for Euphoria without
feature X". Yes, in many cases that would be a nice feature but will it cause
Euphoria to die? Probably not, and even then you have no idea if it will or not
unless you secretly have some time machine you built in your garage and have seen
the Euphoria-less future. Or perhaps you are clairvoyant and can see into the
limitless future.
In regards to statments such as the above, again, how do you know? Are you
secretly psychicly linked to Rob's mind? For all we know Rob will find some bug
in the fontend that will speed up execution by 50% or maybe he reads some paper
on multi-threaded parsing or he reimplements the frontend in C. You have no idea
if he will or not so stop speaking for RDS. Will this happen? Probably not, but
again you have no idea.
Now, do I think Rob should do more with the language? Of course I think he
should, there's so much room for improvement in the language (I've actually
measured how much a foreach statement would speed up my coding and it'd be around
a 10% increase in code output for what I do). Now the keyword there is "think",
it is my opinion not objective fact as many of your statements seem to try to
make themselves sound as if they are. Do I overly criticize Rob for not
implementing some feature I think is "necessary" (such as being a .NET language
or multi-threading)? Of course not.
I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion I just think your overly absolutist
criticism is unnecessary and quite possibly inaccurate. This is not meant as
hostile criticism of you or your opinions it's just that this seems to be quite
common coming from you and it really serves no purpose and can be quite annoying
to us that read the forum regularly.
The Euphoria Standard Library project :
http://esl.sourceforge.net/
The Euphoria Standard Library mailing list :
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion
2. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
D. Newhall wrote:
> *sigh* This is getting old.
> How do you know Vincent? You always do this. You always claim that RDS won't
> ever do something or must do something to survive. It is never like "RDS
> should
> do this to boost sales", oh no, it's "there is no future for Euphoria without
> feature X". Yes, in many cases that would be a nice feature but will it cause
> Euphoria to die? Probably not, and even then you have no idea if it will or
> not unless you secretly have some time machine you built in your garage and
> have seen the Euphoria-less future. Or perhaps you are clairvoyant and can see
> into the limitless future.
First: The above statment was not intended to critizize anyone. I'm happy that
Robert is willing to see what he could do to speed up the front-end some more; I
couldn't ask for more.
Second: You shouldn't be concerned with Eu "dieing". Euphoria never lived, how
could it possibly die? It is a language isolated from the rest of the world that
very few people even know exist and even fewer who care. I've talked to people
who do know about Euphoria; they just laugh at me when I say I use it. They
mention I shouldn't take it seriously as it's aimed for "noobs" and is very
primitive compared to Java and C#. When I mention it's speed, they quickly point
out that Java & .NET platforms now perform faster and that compiled C or C++
would simply "smash" any interpreted language in terms of speed. Many of them
even say that they rather use a language that offers terse syntax and harder to
debug code, because it makes them feel like a smarter programmer. O.o
> In regards to statments such as the above, again, how do you know? Are you
> secretly
> psychicly linked to Rob's mind? For all we know Rob will find some bug in the
> fontend that will speed up execution by 50% or maybe he reads some paper on
> multi-threaded parsing or he reimplements the frontend in C. You have no idea
> if he will or not so stop speaking for RDS. Will this happen? Probably not,
> but again you have no idea.
A fifty percent speed-up would be pretty nice. I know Robert wont consider going
back to a C based front-end because I have talked to him about it. I don't think
he should either. He has clearly explained the benefits of the new front-end from
his perspective and I agree with them for the most part. He also will not be
considering pre-emptive multi-tasking support until the demand for it becomes
universal (several years in the future), also after people made successul use of
the new cooperative multi-tasking feature.
Additionally, I dont want Robert to change his ways, Euphoria remains an simple
and elegent language after 13 years because he has refrained from implementing
every feature people have been requested over the years! I would not wish to see
anyone else controlling the official core language than himself!
> Now, do I think Rob should do more with the language? Of course I think he
> should,
> there's so much room for improvement in the language (I've actually measured
> how much a foreach statement would speed up my coding and it'd be around a 10%
> increase in code output for what I do). Now the keyword there is "think", it
> is my opinion not objective fact as many of your statements seem to try to
> make
> themselves sound as if they are. Do I overly criticize Rob for not
> implementing
> some feature I think is "necessary" (such as being a .NET language or
> multi-threading)?
> Of course not.
After I left Euphoria for a little while, I learned that Euphoria was still
solid GOLD despite it's limitations. I think my hostility towards RDS has been
greatly reduced or stopped since. As for multi-threading support and parsing
bottlenecks... these are all problems that affect me regularly. Luckily though, I
might of found an alternative solution to threads but the alternative to slow
parsing is not always desirable. However even I could not complain if Rob finds a
way to maximize the speed out of the new front-end without resorting to a partial
C re-write or the use of machine code.
> I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion I just think your overly
> absolutist
> criticism is unnecessary and quite possibly inaccurate. This is not meant as
> hostile criticism of you or your opinions it's just that this seems to be
> quite
> common coming from you and it really serves no purpose and can be quite
> annoying
> to us that read the forum regularly.
I appoligize for my past reputation here, but now I think I'm much more polite.
I'd like the ability to delete my negative posts from the EUforum message
archive, but currently no such feature exists. Ohhh Robbb... 
Regards,
Vincent
3. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Vincent wrote:
> A fifty percent speed-up would be pretty nice. I know Robert wont consider
> going
> back to a C based front-end because I have talked to him about it. I don't
> think
> he should either. >
Actually I think he should return to the C based front-end. I never cared
much about the changes over the years, but moving away from a C based front-end
was a mistake in my opinion. For the most part I am happy with the language
and when Rob adds non-blocking support I will be extremely satisfied with EU.
I could easily switch to another language, but developing in EU is easy, fast,
and the final results are "almost" bug free.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
4. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > A fifty percent speed-up would be pretty nice. I know Robert wont consider
> > going
> > back to a C based front-end because I have talked to him about it. I don't
> > think
> > he should either. >
>
> Actually I think he should return to the C based front-end. I never cared
> much about the changes over the years, but moving away from a C based
> front-end
> was a mistake in my opinion. For the most part I am happy with the language
> and when Rob adds non-blocking support I will be extremely satisfied with EU.
> I could easily switch to another language, but developing in EU is easy, fast,
> and the final results are "almost" bug free.
>
>
> ----If you continue to do what you have always done,
> you will get what you have always gotten.----
Whle from your previous posts I think that you and I may disagree on the
advantages of open-source (plus the fact that you have a leg up because you are a
professional programmer and I am not), I think that having Euphoria being
self-hosted is a bonus. Like Rob has said in the past it has simplified his work.
Even if he had kept with a C-based front end though, sharing the same parsing
code between the binder, translator, and interpreter is a plus.
--
"Actually, I'm sitting on my butt staring at a computer screen."
- Tom Tomorrow
j.
5. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Whle from your previous posts I think that you and I may disagree on the
> advantages
> of open-source (plus the fact that you have a leg up because you are a
> professional
> programmer and I am not), I think that having Euphoria being self-hosted is
> a bonus. Like Rob has said in the past it has simplified his work.
>
> Even if he had kept with a C-based front end though, sharing the same parsing
> code between the binder, translator, and interpreter is a plus.
I have nothing against open source when it is truly open source. Rob could
have easily kept everything coded in C and made that open source. But like
I have stated in the past EU being open source has done little to nothing
to push the language forward. We as a community still rely on Rob to make
the changes to the language, so in the end the open source files are mainly
for tinkering.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
6. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
> I have nothing against open source when it is truly open source. Rob could
> have easily kept everything coded in C and made that open source. But like
> I have stated in the past EU being open source has done little to nothing
> to push the language forward. We as a community still rely on Rob to make
> the changes to the language, so in the end the open source files are mainly
> for tinkering.
He could of easily? In that moment he could of basically thrown away his
buisness too. Open-source is not the way to go if someone wishes to make money
off their products. You being a buisness person and all should know that.
You might argue by saying that Euphoria is free now, what difference would it
make if it became officially open-source? I mean they could still sell their
binder and translator products right?
The difference is RDS, most likely, could *not* continue selling their binder
and translator products... why?? because it would be too difficult to try and
keep them fully compatable with all the new spawning flavors of Euphoria! But
even if they could, it wouldn't be very rewarding for them to watch their pride
break free of their grasps then pulled in virtually every direction by the
programming community.
When people keep advacating for a fully open-source Euphoria, they usually arn't
considering how it would effect RDS, they're probably only thinking about
themselves. If that is the case, I think that is just plain selfish.
Regards,
Vincent
7. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Vincent wrote:
>
> When people keep advacating for a fully open-source Euphoria, they usually
> arn't
> considering how it would effect RDS, they're probably only thinking about
> themselves.
> If that is the case, I think that is just plain selfish.
>
A developer should not release their product as open source if they still
expect to continue to make money off of the asset, you can't have your cake
and eat it too. You can't claim EU is open source but then claim RDS should
still make some kind of money, THAT IS NOT the meaning of open source.
Euphoria is not truly open source and it should not be called open source.
Just imagine if Matt or Derek claimed their libraries were open source but
then restricted how you used it, would you still consider that open source?
The main purpose of open source is to allow the USERS to take whatever you
have developed, and take it in in directions you only dreamed of. So what if
there is 100 different flavors of EU, that is the point of open source. Once
you release something as open source you are acknowledging you no longer
have control or any rights to it.
Robert released EU as a limited open source language for two reasons. one he
thought it would attract more users, and two he thought people would come
up with new ideas for the language. Whatever ideas he ended up liking, he
would just incorporate those ideas in the official version. Another plus is
users can find and fix bugs for him.
But Robert plan might one day backfire on him. Someone might figure out
a way to make the PD source as fast or even faster than the RDS version.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
8. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> I have nothing against open source when it is truly open source. Rob could
> have easily kept everything coded in C and made that open source. But like
> I have stated in the past EU being open source has done little to nothing
> to push the language forward. We as a community still rely on Rob to make
> the changes to the language, so in the end the open source files are mainly
> for tinkering.
>
I'll say it again, because I enjoy repeating myself and still think it's
important.
The open sourcing of eu.ex *could* do something to push the language forward.
My idea is that the binder/shrouder be altered to accept il code parsed by
eu.ex. It would require Rob to specify the format required, and then the
binder would convert that into a real il file that could be run by his fast
backend. Since he already does this, it shouldn't amount to too much work
for Rob (famous last words).
But what would this give us? Basically, we could alter the way the language
is parsed, such as adding object oriented features, for instance. Even if
you're not a big fan of OOP (and I'm not), there are still some benefits to
something like this. The OOP features could be used simply as an easier way
to use structures, or complex data types. OK, this largely becomes a
matter of syntactic sugar, but it's a good thing, IMHO. There are other,
less trivial things that could be done, such as a continue keyword for loops,
or even gotos or case statements.
The next question is, "How would RDS benefit?" In order for people to really
take advantage of this ability, they'd need to buy the binder. Of course,
people could use the shrouded files that other contributors have created, but
they wouldn't be able to write their own code or modify existing code and
get the fast execution of the RDS backend.
I think the major hurdles to this (according to past statements by Rob) is
that RDS would end up having to support people's non-standard use of il
code, or that it could cause backward compatibility issues if he decided to
change the way that il code works. These are certainly valid reasons, and
it's hard to say how many additional binder sales this would generate, but
I still want it. :)
Matt Lewis
9. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > When people keep advacating for a fully open-source Euphoria, they usually
> > arn't
> > considering how it would effect RDS, they're probably only thinking about
> > themselves.
> > If that is the case, I think that is just plain selfish.
> >
>
> A developer should not release their product as open source if they still
> expect to continue to make money off of the asset, you can't have your cake
> and eat it too. You can't claim EU is open source but then claim RDS should
>
> still make some kind of money, THAT IS NOT the meaning of open source.
> Euphoria is not truly open source and it should not be called open source.
This is not true. If I assume that by open source you mean free software, and
use the GNU GPL as example (the most common free software license), the situation
is as follows:
They refer to freedom, not price, when they say free software. This means that
an author *can* charge a price for his or her creations, but because of the
freedom every person gets who buys it, this is not very effective if you're
selling over the internet, however, it can be effective if you sell CD's of your
software to people who hasn't got access to high-speed internet.
Also, there are many companies who have given their code and programs a dual
license: one version has the GPL as its license, and one version a proprietary
license. The GPL does not allow that you link code licensed under the GPL with
code licensed under so-called GPL-incompatible licenses. GPL-incompatible
licenses include most proprietary licenses. This means that if you want to link
their program to a program that has a GPL-incompatible license, you would have to
purchase the version with a proprietary license to be allowed to do that.
There are more common ways of making money off free software. For example
providing commercial support and customizing soms software for a customer.
> Just imagine if Matt or Derek claimed their libraries were open source but
> then restricted how you used it, would you still consider that open source?
> The main purpose of open source is to allow the USERS to take whatever you
> have developed, and take it in in directions you only dreamed of. So what if
> there is 100 different flavors of EU, that is the point of open source. Once
> you release something as open source you are acknowledging you no longer
> have control or any rights to it.
Full control: No, Rights: Yes.
You would still have partial control of it, as you are the 'authority' and does
know how all your code works.
And yes, if Eu was made free software, the first month or so would probably be
quite chaotic, but as soon as the people who want to hack on the code of Eu has
teamed up, I think the situation would be much less chaotic. For example, there
could be two teams of people releasing there own versions a little now and then.
Also, you speak like variety and competition would be a bad thing. Why would it
be? I think it could bring some much and for long needed features.
And about rights: Free software is not about taking away the rights from you,
it's about giving everyone the same rights. The GNU GPL defines these four basic
freedoms:
<quote>
* the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* the freedom to study how the program works, and modify it. (Access to the
source code is a precondition for this)
* the freedom to redistribute copies.
* the freedom to improve the program, and release the improvements to the
public. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this)
</quote>
You still do have your copyright on the program, and you are also ensured that
no one can change the license or release modified binary-only versions of it:
"The way the GPL license works is simple, if you do not agree to and abide by
the GPL's terms you do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or
distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. It does not mean that the
rules of the GPL do not apply to you and that you may use the software however
you like. The default is the restrictions of copyright law, not the anarchy of
the public domain."
> Robert released EU as a limited open source language for two reasons. one he
> thought it would attract more users, and two he thought people would come
> up with new ideas for the language. Whatever ideas he ended up liking, he
> would just incorporate those ideas in the official version. Another plus is
> users can find and fix bugs for him.
I think this has failed, as he only released the parser and a back-end written
in Euphoria, instead of the back-end written in C, as open source (Note: it is
not free software, it is open source). As I have understood it, Euphoria users in
general want the speed the official back-end has. Changes they do in the PD
source are very unlikely to propagate into the official version, and therefore
don't think that people are very motivated to try to implement new features in
the PD source.
> But Robert plan might one day backfire on him. Someone might figure out
> a way to make the PD source as fast or even faster than the RDS version.
Anyone can write their own back-end. I have considered doing it, but I have
changed my mind. I have bigger plans.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
10. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Alexander,
If you ask anyone who advocates "true" open source, they will tell you if a
developer charges for access to the code, or puts unreasonable restrictions
on how the source code is being used, it is not considered open source. Once
again, a developer should not "EXPECT" TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE SOURCE CODE
if it is released as open source.
You have made a lot of points about GPL and licenses in general, but I want
to inform you that the GPL and putting restrictions on open source code
is a waste of time. If a coder uses part of source code that has a GPL
attached to it, and did not follow the terms of the GPL, that coder is
completely free from any legal ramifications. I can show you a few cases
where developers tried to take legal action against companies who they
claimed used their source code that was NOT open source, and those
developers lost. Source code is almost impossible to protect, and if a
coder changes the protected code just enough, it is no longer considered
the same code.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
11. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Alexander,
>
> If you ask anyone who advocates "true" open source, they will tell you if a
> developer charges for access to the code, or puts unreasonable restrictions
>
> on how the source code is being used, it is not considered open source.
I never said that. Source code must be available for at most the cost of
shipping. And of course they can't put unreasonable restrictions on how the
source is being used.
> Once
> again, a developer should not "EXPECT" TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE SOURCE CODE
> if it is released as open source.
That is true. On the other hand, you can't be sure that you will make money off
commercial software either.
> You have made a lot of points about GPL and licenses in general, but I want
> to inform you that the GPL and putting restrictions on open source code
> is a waste of time. If a coder uses part of source code that has a GPL
> attached to it, and did not follow the terms of the GPL, that coder is
> completely free from any legal ramifications. I can show you a few cases
> where developers tried to take legal action against companies who they
> claimed used their source code that was NOT open source, and those
> developers lost. Source code is almost impossible to protect, and if a
> coder changes the protected code just enough, it is no longer considered
> the same code.
It is true that it may be hard to prove that the GPL has been violated.
I googled a bit, and I didn't find any case where a GPL violation had gone to
court and the developer of the GPL-licensed code had lost the case. Actually, in
most cases it had been settled out of court. That is, the developer contacts the
company that violates the GPL and the company politely resolves the issue:
http://www.tomahawkcomputers.com/download.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/71418/
http://news.com.com/Fortinet+settles+GPL+violation+suit/2100-7344_3-5684880.html
I just found one case where it had gone to court, and in that case it was a
success:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5198117.html
Regards, Alexander Toresson
12. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
>
> Alexander,
>
> If you ask anyone who advocates "true" open source, they will tell you if a
> developer charges for access to the code, or puts unreasonable restrictions
> on how the source code is being used, it is not considered open source. Once
> again, a developer should not "EXPECT" TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE SOURCE CODE
> if it is released as open source.
>
> You have made a lot of points about GPL and licenses in general, but I want
> to inform you that the GPL and putting restrictions on open source code
> is a waste of time. If a coder uses part of source code that has a GPL
> attached to it, and did not follow the terms of the GPL, that coder is
> completely free from any legal ramifications. I can show you a few cases
> where developers tried to take legal action against companies who they
> claimed used their source code that was NOT open source, and those
> developers lost. Source code is almost impossible to protect, and if a
> coder changes the protected code just enough, it is no longer considered
> the same code.
First, "claims" mean very little. If they can prove that the company stole a
substantial amount of their code than they can, and should, take legal action and
such cases have been upheld in court. These cases also include some involving the
GPL. There have been cases in which the court has ruled that a product be either
disontinued or open sourced because it used GPL code.
The Euphoria Standard Library project :
http://esl.sourceforge.net/
The Euphoria Standard Library mailing list :
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion
13. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Alexander,
Thanks for the links, I always like reading about stuff like this. I should
have also pointed out each country handles these kind of cases differently.
For example in China the copyright laws are almost non-existent and they
rarley enforce the laws in place, but in Germany they take matters like
these very seriously. Here in the USA things are not always clear cut.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
14. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> First, "claims" mean very little. If they can prove that the company stole a
> substantial amount of their code than they can, and should, take legal action
> and such cases have been upheld in court. These cases also include some
> involving
> the GPL. There have been cases in which the court has ruled that a product be
> either disontinued or open sourced because it used GPL code.
>
Now what are you talking about? All lawsuits begin as claims, and then you
must prove your case in court. There is a company called ScriptLogic that
attempted to distribute a commercial product called Cloak, the same name
of a product I was commercially distributing. My product was Trademarked
and Copyrighted and had been on the market for nearly 5 years. Fortunately
it did not go to court and they changed the name of their product to
WinCloak. But if that case had gone to court, it would have taken YEARS to
get a judgment, and it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. My
point is usually when large companies knowingly violate the license of
another company, they often take it to court because they know it takes
years and a substantial amount of money to litigate the case, and the
average small developer can’t afford this.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
15. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Jan 04, 2006
-
Last edited Jan 05, 2006
Chris I think your confusing yourself:
Official RDS Euphoria is not open-source. The *seperate* 100% Euphoria written
source code is public-domain. The fast optimized C back-end is proprietary. For
exchange of $79, RDS will *share* their C back-end but only after you consent to
a strict license agreement. That isn't open-source, it's privately shared
proprietary source code.
Think of it this way... 70% of the official Euphoria interpreter source code is
proprietary, while the other 30% is public-domain; the PD-source code is
completely public-domain. The offical Euphoria interpreters become public-domain
once their built into executables by RDS. The interpreters you might build from
the source code product you purchaced, do not become public-domain.
Since RDS doesn't charge for the complete download packages, they arn't making
money off the front-end or PD-source; thus they are not breaking rules governing
the boundaries of the free, public-domain & open-source software movements.
RDS did it this way because they wish to stay in full control over the official
language. Euphoria may now be free, but RDS still wants users to use their
programming language, not just the alternative flavors. The main purpose for the
PD-source was to give users the ability to make their own versions of the
language for free, but at a cost of speed in a attempt to prevent them from
competing directly with RDS. You cannot really consider this uncompetitive
behavor though, because RDS did *NOT* have to release the PD-source or make
Euphoria freeware at all. If they feel this current plan could backfire, it's
possible RDS will stop supporting the PD-source, and/or even remove it from
future releases.
To put this another way... RDS wants to open up to their customers, but arn't
ready to retire from their buisness yet and still would like their customers to
continue using their official language.
It's possible that when they do decide to retire, they'll release Euphoria and
all their products as public-domain. I will be leaving Euphoria if or when that
happens. I will *NOT* stay to see what becomes of Euphoria in the hands of a
open-source community! For all I know, this language could turn out like BACH,
OpenEu, and OOEu, with all the completity we want but none of the simplicity or
elegence we had. So I guess I'm hoping that RDS will remain in buisness long in
the future.
Regards,
Vincent
16. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
- Posted by C Bouzy <eucoder at hotmail.com>
Jan 04, 2006
-
Last edited Jan 05, 2006
Vincent wrote:
>
> Chris I think your confusing yourself:
>
It wouldn't be the first time, but this is not one of those times.
> Official RDS Euphoria is not open-source. The *seperate* 100% Euphoria written
> source code is public-domain. The fast optimized C back-end is proprietary.
> For exchange of $79, RDS will *share* their C back-end but only after you
> consent to a strict license agreement. That isn't open-source, it's privately
> shared proprietary source code.
Yes I know, and that is why I said EU is not truly open source. The PD
back-end is not the same as the RDS C back-end, and because of this users
do little to improve the PD source. I stated in a previous post Robert
could have easily kept everything in C and released that as open source.
>
> Since RDS doesn't charge for the complete download packages, they arn't making
> money off the front-end or PD-source; thus they are not breaking rules
> governing
> the boundaries of the free, public-domain & open-source software movements.
>
Ok you are confused by the point I was making. If Robert wanted EU to be truly
open source eg: public domain, he would not have converted the RDS C version
to a slower EU version. He could have just released the original version as
is.
> RDS did it this way because they wish to stay in full control over the
> official
> language. Euphoria may now be free, but RDS still wants users to use their
> programming
> language, not just the alternative flavors.
I understand you are stating the C back-end is RDS way of keeping control,
and I agree with you, but I also think the C back-end should also be open
source with no limitations. Why even bother with open source if you really
do not want people to create different flavors of EU?
>The main purpose for the PD-source was to give users the ability to make
>their own versions of the language for free, but at a cost of speed in a
>attempt to prevent them from competing directly with RDS.
Ok..you and I agree here, and that is exactly what I was stating before.
> You cannot really consider this uncompetitive behavor though, because
> RDS did *NOT* have to release the PD-source or make Euphoria freeware at all.
> If they feel this current plan could backfire, it's possible RDS will stop
> supporting
> the PD-source, and/or even remove it from future releases.
The sad fact is including or excluding the source code is not going to matter
much.
> It's possible that when they do decide to retire, they'll release Euphoria and
> all their products as public-domain. I will be leaving Euphoria if or when
> that
> happens. I will *NOT* stay to see what becomes of Euphoria in the hands of a
> open-source community!
I do not understand your point, you do not have to use the other version,
just use the original version. You are not the first to make this statement
and I just do not understand the reasoning behind it. If I created a Windows
only EU, with elements dedicated to Windows development, and this is not
something you are interested in, you do not have to use my version.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
17. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
> Yes I know, and that is why I said EU is not truly open source. The PD
> back-end is not the same as the RDS C back-end, and because of this users
> do little to improve the PD source. I stated in a previous post Robert
> could have easily kept everything in C and released that as open source.
He doesn't want to do that! He knows that if he did, his official Euphoria
interpreters are history and his buisness would be in jeopardy of failing,
because it would become a daunting challenge to support all the new flavors of
Euphoria and provide customer support.
Besides, do you think Robert would have any pleasure in doing that? Do you think
he could keep up for very long? Would he eventually have to offer free customer
support?
He couldn't charge much, otherwise the open-source community would just make
their own free binders and/or translators. I think they would do it anyway just
to make "everything" free and open-source. If that were to happen, then Robert
and Junko would be basically forced to retire from Euphoria completely.
> Ok you are confused by the point I was making. If Robert wanted EU to be truly
> open source eg: public domain, he would not have converted the RDS C version
> to a slower EU version. He could have just released the original version as
He doesn't want it "completely" open-source. Based on messages he posted years
ago, he wasn't even considering to touch the idea until fairly recently.
Back-end = Optimized C
Optimized C = Very fast
Very fast = Bad for RDS if OS
Understand the relationship?
Your just asking RDS to offer the fast back-end source; but inadvertantly means
"take a long walk on a short pier" to RDS. Naturally RDS is declined to do that.
> I understand you are stating the C back-end is RDS way of keeping control,
> and I agree with you, but I also think the C back-end should also be open
> source with no limitations. Why even bother with open source if you really
> do not want people to create different flavors of EU?
I think people have asked RDS to "open up" over the years. Thats precisely what
they did; but just not so much to point where it would greatly risk their
company.
I'm suprized by some of you people keep complaining about this after RDS made
great strides to share their code and even offer Euphoria for FREE.
They obviously didn't have to do anything, but they did and people are still
complaining; I'm sure... *sigh*!
> The sad fact is including or excluding the source code is not going to matter
> much.
Your right it doesn't. People are developing Euphoria clones from scratch as
well. I can think of two people developing them now: Alexander Toresson and Derek
Parnell.
It has been proven over the years that "clones" are not a big threat to RDS. The
main reason for this is because none of them were proven as fast or stable as
official Euphoria. Another reason is some of them added so many uncompatable
features, that things became ugly and people ultimently lost interest.
> I do not understand your point, you do not have to use the other version,
> just use the original version. You are not the first to make this statement
> and I just do not understand the reasoning behind it. If I created a Windows
> only EU, with elements dedicated to Windows development, and this is not
> something you are interested in, you do not have to use my version.
Well I can tell you right now I'd never use a Windows only Euphoria. Microsoft's
development tools are among the best for developing on the operating system they
have created. The Express editions don't cost that much either: $49 (I think).
Besides what if it turns out that only one or two open-source versions spawn
from the release of the source code? We wouldn't have much choice would we? We
either use a unsupported version of RDS Euphoria or one of the few open-source
ones, that could be loaded with features we don't need but still be inflicted
upon us.
Regards,
Vincent
18. Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Vincent wrote:
> He doesn't want to do that! He knows that if he did, his official Euphoria
> interpreters
> are history and his buisness would be in jeopardy of failing, because it would
> become a daunting challenge to support all the new flavors of Euphoria and
> provide
> customer support.
>
Vincent do you honestly think Robert is making that much in sales now?
RDS has been in jeopardy for years, and going completely open source will
not effect much at this point. And why would RDS need to support new flavors
of EU? That would NOT be the job of RDS, that would be the job of the
developers of the new versions.
> Besides, do you think Robert would have any pleasure in doing that? Do you
> think
> he could keep up for very long? Would he eventually have to offer free
> customer
> support?
What?
> He couldn't charge much, otherwise the open-source community would just make
> their own free binders and/or translators. I think they would do it anyway
> just
> to make "everything" free and open-source. If that were to happen, then Robert
> and Junko would be basically forced to retire from Euphoria completely.
>
Robert could easily license EU to another company and he could receive
royalties.
It is clearly obvious his talent is coding not business management.
> Your just asking RDS to offer the fast back-end source; but inadvertantly
> means
> "take a long walk on a short pier" to RDS. Naturally RDS is declined to do
> that.
Not at all. There are so many ways RDS can benefit from EU being completely
open source. For example; companies that wish to redistribute the RDS version
commercially, they could pay royalties to RDS.
> I'm suprized by some of you people keep complaining about this after RDS made
> great strides to share their code and even offer Euphoria for FREE.
You do your share of "complaining".
>
> It has been proven over the years that "clones" are not a big threat to RDS.
> The main reason for this is because none of them were proven as fast or stable
> as official Euphoria. Another reason is some of them added so many
> uncompatable
> features, that things became ugly and people ultimently lost interest.
Now you are thinking like a coder and not a businessman. Lets say
I took the PD version of EU, added an IDE, Windows GUI Debugger...etc..etc,
renamed it something else and sold it. Do you think I would be marketing
my version to the current EU users? Why would I bother, there isn't enough
people using EU for me to market to this community. I would be targeting NEW
users. And the fact my version is not faster would not matter, because
my users would not know about the RDS version of EU. Even the PD EU is
still faster than some other popular languages.
>
> Well I can tell you right now I'd never use a Windows only Euphoria.
> Microsoft's
> development tools are among the best for developing on the operating system
> they
> have created. The Express editions don't cost that much either: $49 (I think).
And that is why you would remain using the RDS version.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
