Re: The fate of Euphoria
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:28:17 -0800, Derek Parnell
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>
> Greg Haberek wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Stick that in your tailpipe and smoke it.
>
> If Honda did upgrade the Civic, would you be upset? Are any of the
> suggested upgrades going to cause you problems?
I wouldn't be upset at all, in fact, they *are* upgrading the Civic
(the new Si will have ~200 hp). Some upgrades could cause issues, it
may not be as reliable or it could be more cumbersome to use.
> If, after having upgraded it, more people started buying them. Would that
> upset you? Especially as that would improve spare parts prices and
> availability, and there'd be more knowledgable mechanics around.
That'd be great, especially since 50 million Civics on the road isn't enough. :)
> If Honda started putting seat belts and airbags in as standard
> (hey! its an analogy), would that upset you?
I agree that some features should be standard, but not all 'cars' come
with all features.
> Is it wrong to consider how things might be rather than how things are?
No, I like change. Change is good. Things need to change, but
everything changes at its own rate.
> Is it wrong to think that Civic is not yet perfect? And thus to ask
> for improvements?
'Perfect' is quite a relative term. As it stands, the Civic *is*
'perfect' it needs no improvement. It works great. If I needed a car,
or wanted to modify a car for cheap, I'd buy a Civic (I had a '93
Civic that I modified the hell out of, and yes, I'm a 'ricer').
> Who is in the better position to improve the Civic? Honda or me?
Depends on the improvement. Side-mount airbags, crumple zones and fuel
economy? Honda. Turbocharger, a body kit and flashy wheels? Me.
> Some of us regard "status quo" as an opportunity for improvement rather
> than a "life sentence".
I'm sure Rob has a huge list of improvements written down somewhere.
I'm sure he'd love to give us everything we want. But maybe instead of
looking at this from a user/programmer point of view, maybe we should
look at it from his point of view, as an owner of a business: Its bad
marketing to put out all your upgrades at one. "Don't put all your
eggs in one basket" so to speak. Why would he couple every single
upgrade into version 2.5 or 2.6? What would 2.7 and 2.8 hold for us?
Let's look at the longevity of the language, or the "Fate of
Euphoria." If we keep proposing upgrades, there *will* be a fate for
Euphoria, since Rob will always have a list to choose from when
implementing new features. What happens if he puts in everything right
away? He won't make money and we won't have new versions. No one will
be happy with Euphoria and the language will die. Rob won't make
money, he'll go poor, starve and die. DO WE WANT ROB TO DIE BECAUSE WE
WERE TOO SELFISH AND WANTED ALL OUR UPGRADES AT ONCE?
Change is good. Change comes with time. With time comes maturity. So
let's give Euphoria some time to mature. We're only on Version 2.x.
~Greg
www.merkur.000k2.com <-- written in 98% Euphoria
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
