Re: new DOS source
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jul 09, 2013
- 3994 views
'real need' =(approx) 'more than a few independant developers demanding Euphoria support for a specific platform'
I guess this is a moot point (since having a 'real need' is not enough by itself), but that definition is too vague to be useful. What's more than a few? How many more?
Or perhaps this is one of those cases where one says, "I can't give you a dictionary definition, but if I saw one, I'd recognize it on sight." ?
How long is a piece of string? Exactly twice the distance from one end to the center.
I see three ways of interpreting that response.
1) You simply agree it's in the "recognize it on sight" case.
2) You think my question is nonsensical, or pointless.
3) You intend to keep the definition vague enough to be able to consistently deny the existence of a 'real need' regardless of circumstances.
You spent a whole day ('all day') on it and still couldn't figure out why the DOS edition kept crashing... but claim to be able to maintain it.
Whatever.
Hyperbole.
Not a DOS issue.
Meh.
In retrospect, I could have worded that better. But if you make a claim to be able to maintain the DOS edition, then I believe it's a valid move to question your credentials and/or technical skills in relation to that claim. (Something like code samples or professional references would be enough to affirm that claim, imvho.)
At best, we know of a handful of people willing to but lacking the technical skills to maintain a DOS edition of Euphoria 4.x and one person who possesses the technical skill but lacks the will to do so.
DOS is still a lost cause - we don't have anyone willing and able to do it.
