OpenEuphoria

RE: Eu Rebellion (was: New Euphoria Users Website)

• Posted by phil long <tinstaafl at attbi.com> Nov 16, 2002
• 354 views

I like the idea of an open-source EXU.  So long as the folks who work on 
it haven't seen Rob's code (or maybe even if they have, if Rob OKs it), 
there wouldn't be any copyright violations, and I don't think Rob has 
any patents on his code.  I, for one, have been champing at the bit to 
port EU to CYGWIN, a U**X-y port of the FSF tools to WinX platforms, but 
with a layoff in the offing and no raise this year, I can't scratch 
together the bucks for the source.  Doing the entire job by oneself is 
daunting, but as the open-source community has discovered, many coding 
hands makes for lighter work for all.  Better yet, if the 'maintainer' 
gets tired of the job, he can always hand it off to somebody else; best 
of all, as with any open-source project, anybody could maintain his own 
personal version.  Are you putting together an open-source effort?

thx, phil long





jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
> On  0, "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Despite all the GUI toolkits, Euphoria is still a DOS application.
> > Anything
> > > extention beyond that has been developed by the users, and isn't
> > officially
> > > supported by RDS.
> > 
> > As such, why concern ourselves what will be "supported" by RDS? Let's 
> > start
> > a EUPHORIA Users Group that will build on the core provided by RDS. Who
> > cares what RobC will "support" or not? We're just using him for his core
> > language. :)
> > 
> > There are groups who do the same with Java, VB, Python, Puka, Lua,
> > LiverNuts, etc...
> > 
> > > I'm not saying this is a bad thing. That's just the way it is, and I 
> > > don't
> > see
> > > any reason to think it will change in the near future.
> > 
> > RDS won't change it, but what stops a group of brilliant developers from
> > taking things as far as possible?
> > 
> > Or is the core of EUPHORIA just too limiting? Or are there different
> > roadblocks?
> > 
> 
> This was the idea behind Dredge. Exu was the core, and then the parsers
> would
> build on top of it. However, this didn't inspire a lot of people,
> apparently,
> so I've decided it may be time to put it on the back burner.
> 
> Instead, I'm gonna try to move to an open-source Exu. Perhaps this might
> inspire more people?
> 
> jbrown
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>