Re: The fate of Euphoria
On 6 Nov 2004, at 1:12, Greg Haberek wrote:
<snip>
> 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?
And if he does NOT make changes, the language will always be a primitive
LISP wannabe, without even a basic goto or case statement, and Rob 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 DIDN'T GET
OUR UPGRADES !
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
