1. OpenEU
- Posted by Deric Wechter <dericwechter at netscape.net> Aug 18, 2003
- 475 views
This is just one man's opinion of course, but I find it a bit disturbing that an Open Source Euphoria is being pursued. I can emphasize and relate to the frustration of having a product you love not getting the attention you think it deserves as I've been in similar positions before with other products and have considered the idea of copying them. The idea is seductive when something you care about is not living up to what you perceive as its' potential. However, all legal issues aside I personally think it's extremely unethical. Euphoria clearly exists because of Robert Craig. The fact that you're not satisfied with how he handles his product isn't a valid reason to attempt to hijack it. If you must take this drastic step, why not create a new language which includes Euphoria-like features? All programming languages, including Euphoria borrow concepts from previous ones however they don't amount to exact replicas of each other. While Mr. Craig is in this for profit, his prices are very reasonable. It's certainly possible to pay a lot more for less. As is often mentioned here, it's also an extremely stable product. I know one could argue that all of the major established languages are not solely in the hands of their creators but most of them were developed under different circumstances and with a few exceptions they tend to be a lot older than Euphoria is. On the other hand, the fact that users clearly are this frustrated with his nurturing of the product should prompt Mr. Craig to consider working with the users to implement reasonable improvements. While some suggestions such as GOTO and possibly Pass by Reference may not fall in line with his vision of what the language should be, certainly many reasonable improvements have also been suggested, such as assigning values to variables in the statements which you declare them in. Improvements such as that one just make too much sense any way you slice them for them not to be implemented. I'm with the Pass by Value camp on the Pass by Reference discussion. It it rarely _necessary_ to _need_ to resort to using global variables. Convenience issues aside, almost always there's a Pass by Value solution. Since you can get a Pass by Reference effect with global variables, there is a workaround if you prefer to do things that way. It may not be pretty or best coding practice, but many don't consider Passing by Reference to be best coding practice either. As far as strict data types go, it would be ideal if it were made a seamless option. Sequences as we know them are indeed a double-edged sword. The beauty and burden of sequences is how flexible they are. The programmer is often in a position where he or she has to worry about the type of data in a variable so the headache we're spared in definition and scope is considerably offset by the headache of manually ensuring the proper kind of data is being entered. While not needing to manage various data types is an intended feature of Euphoria, having the ability to optionally assign each atom in a sequence a definite data type would only serve to enhance the language while retaining the ability to use sequences as they are now. Hypothetical Examples: atom tatm = type_char sequence tseq = {type_char, type_str, type_int, type_real} if tatm = type_char then ... end if Even just having an optional int and real number type would make a big difference. Character and String types could be used symbolicly while still actually storing the data as sequences of ASCII codes. That way, one could still ensure they're storing the type of data they want to without fundamentally changing the way the language works. Coders wouldn't suddenly start strict typing every sequence either. It would be particularly useful for handling user input as Irv pointed out. -Deric Wechter
2. Re: OpenEU
- Posted by jbrown105 at speedymail.org Aug 18, 2003
- 451 views
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Deric Wechter wrote: I also wanted to add that when it comes to massive and greedy corporate entities which pay far more attention to marketing than quality while eliminating all competition thus stifling innovation, I'm all for sticking it to such beasts the best way plausible- with free Open Source alternatives. However, Robert Craig's clearly a small businessman trying to make an honest buck with a truly innovative product so this lacks all of that maverick to hell with the man appeal of Open Source. There should be more companies like his in software. Small software companies are embattled enough being the little fish in the pond without being forced to compete with free software. I realize some involved with OpenEU have made large contributions to the language and as respectable and noteworthy as that is, I can't see how that would entitle anyone to try and take the product out of his hands. -Deric Wechter Actually, we're attempting to FORK the language, not steal it. After OpenEuphoria comes out, there will be 2 types of Euphoria. One branch will be the OpenEuphoria variants, the other will be the versions of Euphoria post-2.4 made by RDS. Anything added to later versions of RDS Euphoria will be of no concern to the OE coders. (The reason for being v2.4 compatible is so that existing user libraries such as win32lib will work under OE, as so much of the functionality of Euphoria comes from user-contributions its either rewrite those contributions for the new language or make the language compatible enough that the old ones will work.) Of course, it is certainly possible (especially with the current rate of change in RDS Euphoria right now) that OpenEuphoria will overshadow RDS Euphoria in terms of popularity, but it will also move away from the original language. In the process, OE is likely to find its own niche, and RDSEuphoria will keep some loyal users who like it just fine while others who think it needs more can go on to OE. The idea was never to kick RDS out, but merely to provide an alternative to all those frustrated Euphoria programmers who think the language can do better. I doubt Rob is very worried either, even with OE out there hes not likely to start starving anytime soon. jbrown -- /"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/ \ / campain against | Linux User:190064 X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163 /*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
3. Re: OpenEU
- Posted by jbrown105 at speedymail.org Aug 18, 2003
- 444 views
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:18:28AM +0000, Deric Wechter wrote: This is just one man's opinion of course, but I find it a bit disturbing that an Open Source Euphoria is being pursued. I can emphasize and relate to the frustration of having a product you love not getting the attention you think it deserves as I've been in similar positions before with other products and have considered the idea of copying them. The idea is seductive when something you care about is not living up to what you perceive as its' potential. However, all legal issues aside I personally think it's extremely unethical. Euphoria clearly exists because of Robert Craig. The fact that you're not satisfied with how he handles his product isn't a valid reason to attempt to hijack it. I've already responded to this in another email. In short: we're not stealing it, we're forking it so we can make it better. Maybe then RC will get it into his head now Euphoria can be improved and actually do it. If you must take this drastic step, why not create a new language which includes Euphoria-like features? All programming languages, including Euphoria borrow concepts from previous ones however they don't amount to exact replicas of each other. OpenEuphoria will by no means be an exact replica of any language. If you read past emails in the openeu list you will see that it is a very different language indeed... it will duplicate enough to run all existing Euphoria code (so we don't lose all those open source Euphoria contributions, especially the ones like Win32lib which are considered by many to be an essential part of the language, even if it isnt part of the language). Almost all Euphoria projects are open source. Many open source movements have born and died around Euphoria. Also, this is not the first Euphoria clone. If you read past emails you'll find out about peu, gnuphoria, eu.ex, Eu++, etc. So what is being done here isn't even anything new. While Mr. Craig is in this for profit, his prices are very reasonable. It's certainly possible to pay a lot more for less. As is often mentioned here, it's also an extremely stable product. No one wants to see RC lose money. The point is, he already has lost money because he didnt more pay attention to his users. As Irv stated, perhaps the threat of OE will change RDS's views ... in which case OE wouldnt be needed anymore. I know one could argue that all of the major established languages are not solely in the hands of their creators but most of them were developed under different circumstances and with a few exceptions they tend to be a lot older than Euphoria is. On the other hand, the fact that users clearly are this frustrated with his nurturing of the product should prompt Mr. Craig to consider working with the users to implement reasonable improvements. And yet, the fact is that this is not so. (At least, not to a large enough extend to make most people happy.) While some suggestions such as GOTO and possibly Pass by Reference may not fall in line with his vision of what the language should be, certainly many reasonable improvements have also been suggested, such as assigning values to variables in the statements which you declare them in. Improvements such as that one just make too much sense any way you slice them for them not to be implemented. I'm with the Pass by Value camp on the Pass by Reference discussion. It it rarely _necessary_ to _need_ to resort to using global variables. Convenience issues aside, almost always there's a Pass by Value solution. Since you can get a Pass by Reference effect with global variables, there is a workaround if you prefer to do things that way. It may not be pretty or best coding practice, but many don't consider Passing by Reference to be best coding practice either. Regardless where you stand on the issues of the language, nothing shall be done. RDS isn't going to add in new features just because you said they are a good thing to implement, even if they really are. As far as strict data types go, it would be ideal if it were made a seamless option. Sequences as we know them are indeed a double-edged sword. The beauty and burden of sequences is how flexible they are. The programmer is often in a position where he or she has to worry about the type of data in a variable so the headache we're spared in definition and scope is considerably offset by the headache of manually ensuring the proper kind of data is being entered. While not needing to manage various data types is an intended feature of Euphoria, having the ability to optionally assign each atom in a sequence a definite data type would only serve to enhance the language while retaining the ability to use sequences as they are now. Hypothetical Examples: atom tatm = type_char sequence tseq = {type_char, type_str, type_int, type_real} if tatm = type_char then ... end if Even just having an optional int and real number type would make a big difference. Character and String types could be used symbolicly while still actually storing the data as sequences of ASCII codes. That way, one could still ensure they're storing the type of data they want to without fundamentally changing the way the language works. Coders wouldn't suddenly start strict typing every sequence either. It would be particularly useful for handling user input as Irv pointed out. Concurred, tho I'd prefer a different syntax. However, I doubt RDS will add the feature you just suggested here to Euphoria either. Your chances are much better with OpenEuphoria. Which is why it exists (or will exist) in the first place. -Deric Wechter jbrown TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! -- /"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/ \ / campain against | Linux User:190064 X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163 /*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
4. Re: OpenEU
- Posted by Ted Fines <fines at macalester.edu> Aug 18, 2003
- 479 views
Hi all, Can anyone provide examples of successful and unsuccessful forked software projects? I understand and agree with many of the arguments both for and against an open source Eu competing with Euphoria. I'm just curious about what has happened in other instances. Ted --On Monday, August 18, 2003 12:23 PM -0400 jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Deric Wechter wrote: > I also wanted to add that when it comes to massive and greedy corporate > entities which pay far more attention to marketing than quality while > eliminating all competition thus stifling innovation, I'm all for > sticking it to such beasts the best way plausible- with free Open Source > alternatives. > > However, Robert Craig's clearly a small businessman trying to make an > honest buck with a truly innovative product so this lacks all of that > maverick to hell with the man appeal of Open Source. There should be > more companies like his in software. Small software companies are > embattled enough being the little fish in the pond without being forced > to compete with free software. > > I realize some involved with OpenEU have made large contributions to the > language and as respectable and noteworthy as that is, I can't see how > that would entitle anyone to try and take the product out of his hands. > > -Deric Wechter > Actually, we're attempting to FORK the language, not steal it. After OpenEuphoria comes out, there will be 2 types of Euphoria. One branch will be the OpenEuphoria variants, the other will be the versions of Euphoria post-2.4 made by RDS. Anything added to later versions of RDS Euphoria will be of no concern to the OE coders. (The reason for being v2.4 compatible is so that existing user libraries such as win32lib will work under OE, as so much of the functionality of Euphoria comes from user-contributions its either rewrite those contributions for the new language or make the language compatible enough that the old ones will work.) Of course, it is certainly possible (especially with the current rate of change in RDS Euphoria right now) that OpenEuphoria will overshadow RDS Euphoria in terms of popularity, but it will also move away from the original language. In the process, OE is likely to find its own niche, and RDSEuphoria will keep some loyal users who like it just fine while others who think it needs more can go on to OE. The idea was never to kick RDS out, but merely to provide an alternative to all those frustrated Euphoria programmers who think the language can do better. I doubt Rob is very worried either, even with OE out there hes not likely to start starving anytime soon. jbrown -- /"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/ \ / campain against | Linux User:190064 X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163 /*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!