Re: Spill it, bob!
> MTS writes:
> > Rober, can you please ell us he following about
> the Eu
> > source code:
> > - How big is it in lines of code
HEY!
*I* wrote that!!
Not this MTS character you speak of.
Plagiary is illegal, you can't put your signature on
some else's writings, that would be bad.
I'll sue this MTS character immediatly.
;)
> The interpreter source that I'll be releasing is
> about 22,500 lines of pure C source. No C++ features
> are used.
What the ?!#! did you leave out of the source?
The interpreter is between 20 and 30 thousand lines of
code.
You're giving us this 22,500 lines of code source
collection?
That's A. Generous and B. Insane! Stop that! Who'll
debug all that code? Not me.
> There are several thousand additional lines
> that I'm not releasing - the Translator plus a few
> other bits.
> You can use the source to make a Euphoria
> interpreter for
> Windows, DOS or Linux. I'm including 6 different
> .bat files
> to build the interpreter with 6 different C
> compilers.
>
> > - What files is it composed of
>
> A few dozen .c and .h files.
WHAAAAAT?
Keep it.
Six is the maximum.
One header and one source file for each platform.
Contrary to popular belief, using a lot of different C
files is not 'good coding practice' nor is it
'encapsulation' and not even 'structured programming',
it's the result from floating tubs of lard instructing
their employees to each write a module of a software
product so the pack of wolves, sorry, 'other
employees', can code their own bits and pieces. This
is why Microsoft products are buggy, they were coded
by hundreds and even thousands of coders.
A single coder can't manage 'a couple of dozen' source
files!
I'm betting Euphoria would have being much more
advanced today if you didn't waste time juggling all
those files around.
But you whent to a CS school so I'd expect that from
you.
But I always imagined the *starter* of this new
limited source-file rage to follow its own teachings.
That's right - Euphoria is the one that advocates the
discarding of the Zillion Source Files trend.
Anyone that knows Euphoria and then later on learns C
or C++, will continue to put all of its code in a
handfull of sources.
And that's the *right* way of doing it when you're a
decent, robust developer.
Imagine win32lib.ew as 14 different includes!!
When you work for a software company, expect to spend
90% of a workingday scavaging through source files.
It is only logical and 'intelligent' to do this:
euphoria.c +
euphoria.h = Euphoria
And not this:
main.c + init.c + stubs.c + mem.c + sequence.c +
sequence.h + stubs.h + iowrap.c + iowrap.h + runtime.c
+ interp.c + runtime.h + interp.h + platform.c +
platform.h + liniowrap.c + winiowrap.c + dosiowrap.c +
_inline.c + _inline.h + diskcache.c + cache.h +
nctl52.c
= Euphoria
A non-C coder will think 'but having a file for each
part of a program means replacing that file will
update the entire program without breaking
anything!!!' but any C coder knows that this is the
exact opposite of reality.
A bug in one file will blow up your entire program.
Same thing when using only a handfull of files.
So what's the big deal?
When someone comes to me and wants to learn how to
code in C, the first lesson I give him is NEVER to
have more than 3 files in a program, and to not accept
more from possible future employees but fire them
immediatly, if he'll be richer than me someday, that
is.
The only other 'respected' person in the world that
advocates the same ideas as I do, is Kenneth
Silverman.
Even before releasing the source to the best-selling
classic 3D Engine 'Build', he told me that he hated
having lots of source files.
The source once released proved this as it logically
uses 'engine.c' and 'engine.h' as the 3D engine's
source.
Simple.
A game he wrote back in the Wolf3D days has the entire
game coded in main().
This game was sold by Epic a decade or so ago.
It was a Wolf3D clone with a better engine, compare it
to the Wolf3D source and see the difference between
the same thing coded by a team and by a single person.
> > - Is it OpenSource or compiled binaries?
>
> It's plain C source with comments.
A dumb question gets a dumb awnser.
That last one was a joke.
> It is *not* being released as "Open Source"
> since you will *not* be permitted to distribute it.
> On the other hand you'll be able to port it, and
> enhance it
> in various ways, and sell your version, without
> revealing
> your source changes (something that a GNU license
> would forbid you from doing).
>
> The RDS source license and price will be available
> on the Web site
> when 2.3 is released (another week or so).
Good.
GNU is evil.
Mike The Spike
PS. And for the last time I am *not* MTS!
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
