1. Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by Martin Stachon <martin.stachon at worldonline.cz> Sep 26, 2001
- 433 views
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C146B9.2A953480 charset="iso-8859-2"
3. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by pampeano at ROCKETMAIL.COM Sep 26, 2001
- 393 views
>Some important libraries haven't been > written yet (DirectX) Well, Exotica is a directx wrapper, and ExoticaX wraps exotica to make it easy to use... I think Euphoria is just right as it is. I like open source projects, but I have to remind you that sources all selled too, or you can't copy them without putting his license, that's a thing I hate. I like to trust people to use my code and give me credits. If they don't they are bad coders, simply as that. ===== Best Regards, Guillermo Bonvehi AKA: Knixeur - Caballero Rojo
4. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by tone.skoda at siol.net Sep 27, 2001
- 401 views
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C1474E.53AAACC0 charset="iso-8859-2"
5. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by Jasper_Holshuijsen at dsw.nl Sep 28, 2001
- 397 views
Hi, I think Martin brings up a good issue: how to get more people interested in Euphoria. However, I don't totally agree with his suggestions. I think point 2 and 3 are a bit beside the real issue and point 5 is already done. My comment on the other points: free is not always better. I'm willing to pay for quality. In my opinion Euphoria has quality. I came across Euphoria whem I was looking for information about Visual Basic. I didn't know Euphoria by then because it's quit exotic. It's the quality of the programming concept what made me decide to use it, not the marketing concept. But I agree that the marketing could be better. The possibility tot try it for free is good. I think it's one of the best ways to interest people. I've used Euphoria for a month now and I've come tot the point that I want to buy the full package. What I had like to do is going to a shop, look for that nice box with Euphoria, read what's in the box (CD, documentation, etc.), look at the other boxes to convince myself that I made the right decision and buy the thing for 40 euro (about $40). For more detailed information I'd go the bookstore and buy a good book about programming in Euphoria in my native language. Now I have to find someone with a creditcard or take a day of to go to the bank to make an international money-transfer with all extra costs. I then get a floppy, have to pay transportcosts and wait for ten days. People don't like that. Okay, it's the chicken and egg story. Because you don't have enough users, shops won't sell you package (or you just don't have the recources to reach the shops in the first place), and because people don't see your product the number of users grow very slow. But one could make a start. First of all make a nice CD with a nice jewel-box of it. Try to get selling-agents in as much country's as possible (to avoid the shipping and money-transfer problems). Make documentation in the shape of a book. Try to get reviews in PC-magazines. These are just e few suggestions with are low-cost and you still sell via the internet. Greetings, Jasper. martin.stachon@worl donline.cz To: EUforum at topica.com cc: 26-09-2001 18:29 Subject: Eu OpenSource Vision Please respond to EUforum Hello, this is my vision of Euphoria : *The Current State* The includes distributed with Eu are enough only for DOS. The most useful libraries are the ones created by users and with source aviable. Most the libraries and tools aren't updated frequently (except the IDE), or they are abandoned (EuSock), or they are lacking documentation, are incomplete, or have bugs. Some important libraries haven't been written yet (DirectX) To Euphoria be competitive with other languages (VisualBasic, C) that comes with CDs full of libraries and exaples, this should be changed. For example, newbies often want to write games. Although Eu is easy and fast to learn language, good for newbies, they have no easy way to use DirectX. (And I'm not mentioning all the lots of 3D engines aviable for C/C++). After saying "Euphoria is some DOS crap.", they will move to C, where they will have problems with pointers, types etc. *Things that can be done* 1) Get larger user base. The most difficult and most important point. 2) Unite programing style and naming and formatting conventions. I would suggest the standart RDS style, expcept that tabs would be used for formatting instead of spaces. Optionally create a tool, similiar to C "indent" to automatically reformat sources. 3) Unite way to submit patches. If more people were working on single project, the current practise of sending whole changed libraries or describing "change this there and that over there" would be uneffective. A solution based on UNIX "diff" command, or something like that would be good. 4) Make Euphoria interpreter aviable for free, or at least remove the 300 statement limit. This would help point 1) Or even make the interpreter completely open source, with a maintainer (Rob), which would keep the style and conception of the language, and wouldn't allow 'wild' changes (labels, pointers). 5) Set up a page for Eu OpenSource projects with mailing lists, info, news, progress status, what can be done, latest patches etc. etc. This could be eventually hosted at rapideuphoria.com 6) Choose a license for distributing programs and libraries (GPL, LPL ?) With more libraries and tools aviable, more users would use Eu, making more libs and tools etc. Do you think it is impossible ? Regards, Martin Stachon martin.stachon at worldonline.cz http://www.webpark.cz/stachon
6. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM> Oct 01, 2001
- 387 views
Martin Stachon wrote: > I think it is a difference if a library is written by > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people > improving the product every day. Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"? > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So > many useful programs and libraries are for free. > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are > doing it just for their good feeling they're > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship, many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord, wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship. >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind >> a single coding style. > > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style. > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar() I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world, people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this: while (1) { /* code */ } versus: while (1) { /* code * } >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue. > > But it would be good, especially with larger projects. Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone could write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches. >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away? > > A few of commercial products have been given to public. > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers, > hopefully, from other languages. I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register Euphoria than the ability to bind it. I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free, I'd like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users - apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course. > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software. So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in mind that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'. > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc. Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would be no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob > would have more time. When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is on Robert. > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future. If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales value. I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would be great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue. I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was no rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like E2C). -- David Cuny
7. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM> Oct 01, 2001
- 395 views
David Cuny wrote: > would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene I should learn to read my posts before sending them out. Sorry if the tone seems so argumentative, but much of this has been debated in the past. I'll just point again to Pete's Euphoria, which has virtually fallen off the face of the earth. -- David Cuny
8. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Oct 01, 2001
- 387 views
David: I have not heard before of this version of Euphoria that Pete Eberlein wrote. Will you please comment more extensively on it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> Subject: Re: Eu OpenSource Vision > > Martin Stachon wrote: > > > I think it is a difference if a library is written by > > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people > > improving the product every day. > > Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"? > > > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So > > many useful programs and libraries are for free. > > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are > > doing it just for their good feeling they're > > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame > > Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are > far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than > there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship, > many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord, > wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship. > > > >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind > >> a single coding style. > > > > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style. > > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming > > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with > > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar() > > I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt > you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world, > people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this: > > while (1) > { > /* code */ > } > > versus: > > while (1) { > /* code * > } > > > >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue. > > > > But it would be good, especially with larger projects. > > Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone could > write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches. > > > >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away? > > > > A few of commercial products have been given to public. > > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing > > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers, > > hopefully, from other languages. > > I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register > Euphoria than the ability to bind it. > > I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given > the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free, I'd > like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users - > apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course. > > > > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some > > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software. > > So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on > Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in mind > that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'. > > > > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make > > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc. > > Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would be > no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond > would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene > > > > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator > > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob > > would have more time. > > When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is on > Robert. > > > > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future. > > If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is > one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales value. > I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would be > great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue. > > I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently > available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was no > rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a > pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like E2C). > > -- David Cuny > > >
9. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Oct 01, 2001
- 384 views
David Cuny writes: > I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. > Given the history of people expecting most things on the platform > to be free, I'd like to know if there's a significant number of > registered Linux users - apart from those that started using > Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course. Most people register the WIN32 + DOS32 interpreter package. However, since the Linux version became available, 15% to 20% of those registering have included Linux, either by itself, or more likely, in combination with WIN32+DOS32. These are mostly new users, not existing WIN32+DOS32 users. Given that most people don't even have Linux, this percentage seems quite reasonable. Since the Translator became available, about 15% to 20% of new users have included the Translator when registering, plus a lot of existing users registered for the Translator when it first came out. Given that most people don't have a C compiler installed on their machine (and don't want one), this also seems reasonable. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
13. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM> Oct 02, 2001
- 425 views
Pete wrote: > I don't have a Mac (or emulator) or compiler with otherwise > I would [compile it]. If you don't mind sticking to the 'classic' Mac, the Basislisk II emulator works quite well: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bauec002/B2Main.html I've used the version with the JIT compiler, and it works just fine. There is the free MPW C/C++ compiler: http://developer.apple.com/tools/mpw-tools/ It runs just fine under the Basilisk emulator. I've also picked up an old 'bronze' MetroWerks compiler from eBay which generates 'fat' binaries. -- David Cuny
14. Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
- Posted by Martin Stachon <martin.stachon at worldonline.cz> Oct 05, 2001
- 407 views
David Cuny writes: > Martin Stachon wrote: > > > I think it is a difference if a library is written by > > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people > > improving the product every day. > > Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"? Yes, I was in hurry. > > > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So > > many useful programs and libraries are for free. > > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are > > doing it just for their good feeling they're > > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame > > Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are > far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than > there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship, > many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord, > wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship. But Euphoria - only IDE developping and win32lib with time delays. I don't know of any other active projects. > >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind > >> a single coding style. > > > > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style. > > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming > > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with > > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar() > > I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt > you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world, > people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this: > > while (1) > { > /* code */ > } > > versus: > > while (1) { > /* code * > } > I think the second way was accepted. I didn't want to say "everybody must code this way", but I wanted to say "it would be nice to not have confusion with WSockGetIP, int_to_bytes, getText etc." > >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue. > > > > But it would be good, especially with larger projects. > > Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone could > write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches. Since Eu projects are small (<1 MB), it is easy to distribute the whole file modified, but for example with win32lib it would be good to release a patch after each of all the bugfixes Derek's posting, and of course with larger projects. > >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away? > > > > A few of commercial products have been given to public. > > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing > > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers, > > hopefully, from other languages. > > I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register > Euphoria than the ability to bind it. > > I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given > the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free, I'd > like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users - > apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course. > > > > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some > > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software. > > So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on > Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in mind > that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'. Just a idea of possibility of incereasing no. of users. But I guess Rob, of course, wants to have a source of money. > > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make > > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc. > > Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would be > no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond > would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene > > > > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator > > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob > > would have more time. > > When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is on > Robert. > > > > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future. > > If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is > one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales value. > I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would be > great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue. > > I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently > available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was no > rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a > pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like E2C). It seems that most of people (including me) don't work so good for free as if they would be paid for it. This is capitalism. Maybe Eu should remain commercial, but making Eu OS wasn't my main idea. Maybe some good propagation with some good apps written in Eu may attract more people that making Eu OS. Martin