Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)
Eucoder wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I totally agree with you that we do not need the source to create add-ons
> for Euphoria, and that would be great if Euphoria had a large user base.
> Unfortunately a few hundred people do not justify the time, effort, and
> money associated with releasing a product, especially when the product
> is a low ticket item. It would be better for my company to create our own
> flavor of EU with features not supported by the current version. It is not
> only an IDE, compiler, etc..etc I want to add. Myself and others have already
Why would you want a compiler? The Euphoria to C translator is close enough to
that already. You translate your code to C then "compile" it to a EXE or DLL/SO.
> come to realize EU is not going to progress as other languages because of
> the many limitations being put on it. Robert has released the source code,
> but there are limitations on how you use the RDS version. The public domain
> EU version is not then same as the RDS C version, and Robert purposely did
> that so there would not be any competition to RDS.
The Public Domain source and C source share virtually identical Euphoria coded
front-ends. The C version has an extention to the front-end to help it interface
with the C back-end. The Public Domain source has a back-end written completely
in Euphoria, while the C source has a highly optimized
C back-end. Profiling and advanced trace facility features have been omitted
from the Public Domain version.
Both versions are 100% compatable and the back-ends execute the same exact
intermediate language (IL) opcodes. The only difference is just exectution speed.
Lets not forget that RDS could of decided not to have given us the source at
all. After all, they did have to write a 2385 line Euphoria coded back- end, in
order to support the PD-source. It's even more generous that they offered it free
of charge and without license restrictions.
> Robert knows if he allows others to use the source code freely with no
> limitations whatsoever,
> other versions will surpass the RDS version overnight. In some ways I do not
> blame him, but if you are going to release a product as open source, do not
> put any limitations on it. I have a high esteem for Robert, but after 12
> years it is time to allow others to create their own flavors of the language.
>
Of course... Euphoria is Robert's pride, he'd be damned to let others take that
away from him! The C source code is more like "shared-source".
I don't see how Euphoria can really be surpassed. The only major feature the
language will need in the near future is thread-safety w/ modified + extended
task API that supports concurrency; 64-bit editions would be very nice too. But
other than those, a Mac port and minor improvements is good enough for awhile. I
mean, you can add hundreds of features and constructs to the language, but have
it turn out like Bach: ugly and undesirable.
> PS: The laws regarding source code is quite interesting. Although Robert has
> put limitations on how people can use the source, if someone alters it
> significantly, he cannot seek legal action. That is one of the reasons
> why you cannot patent source code.
>
> --Chris
I hope you don't decide to leave and settle with a lesser language. Euphoria is
as open as it will ever get while under RDS rule, I think
they made a good strive at opening up, while still remaining in control.
Regards,
Vincent
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
