RE: The fate of Euphoria
David Jarvis wrote:
>
>
> Dear EU Forum members
>
> I do not know what future Eu has.
>
> **From one viewpoint**
> My only interest in Eu's fate is whether the investment in time I
> have taken to learn and use it, and the fee I paid for the Private Ed
> of the interpreter v 2.4 will be "lost" if it "dies" tomorrow.
>
> If Eu died tomorrow - it would owe me nothing. And I would probably
> continue to use if for a number of years.
>
> I suspect many others also find Eu *currently* a very useful tool
> which is very good value (in terms of fee, ease of use, power). So I
> suspect it will keep going for a while yet.
>
> **Could it be better?**
> For whom? Making it better for you may mean it is no longer as useful
> to me (eg harder for me to learn because of the extra feature you
> wanted).
>
> So if RDS judges what is "better" correctly, they will make more
> money (and/or have more users), if not they will have less users (and
> presumably make less money). If they are too slow in making Eu
> "better", they will loose users to other "better" languages.
>
> In contrast to what a number of members seem to be implying, RDS
> probably have quite a lot at stake in making Eu "better".
>
> **From another viewpoint**
> The above viewpoint is rather "dry" - there is no passion in it.
>
> Many of the posts I have read seem to be from people who work in or
> understand the software industry and who *care* about Eu and it's
> future. They seem to be from people who can see that Eu has a great
> future and may miss out on it because of lack of certain features, or
> lack of pace in its evolution.
>
> I'm not sure why they *care* about Eu - perhaps they have put in much
> more to the development of Eu than I have - eg via contributed code
> into the archive. However, I suspect RDS may do well listening to
> these people.
>
> David
>
Those are very good opinions David, and well said.
The changes that most of us are asking for are not really for our own
needs, as much as it is for Eu's needs. The majority of those changes
would make Eu simpler to learn and use. Not more difficult.
None of us want to change what Eu is, just make it better.
Euphoria's greatest trait is it's concise, and simple syntax.
For example, many of us would like to see a better namespacing
implementation. I personally haven't pushed hard for that one, because I
beleive the problem lies elsewhere. The namespacing problem is a
secondary solution to that problem... same with the proposed 'import',
that is another secondary solution, it doesn't address the actual
problem. How globals are handled.
To fix that problem properly, would require breaking alot of code, so
again, I haven't pushed for that either.
Some things like how includes are handled though, can be rectified,
without affecting anybody's code, and would provide us with the ability
to better organize all the libraries we collect and use. And also to
better organize our distributed code with less fuss.
Most of what we (me at least) are asking for is not for Robert Craig to
implement our requests, but to give them a fair chance to be considered.
Currently, it's near impossible for us collaboratively agree on any
issues, because there are no records kept, other than this extremely
adhoc forum and Rob's half-baked responses. Further, Robert won't even
respond to many of the requests, because he's already responded in the
past. That doesn't help newer users who weren't around for those
conversations. And it doesn't help people to contend both the user's
requests, or Rob's responses.
There are als many requests I would NOT like to see in Eu, yet I'm not
going to sit on this list waiting for people to make those suggestions,
so that I can tell them why I think it shouldn't be.
But that is the only option.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
