Re: .il code/file questions
On 17 Nov 2004, at 14:55, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>
> Andy Serpa wrote:
> >
> > Robert Craig wrote:
> > >
> > > In theory, I could sell the translator source, but with
> > > the restriction that it can only be used for private use,
> > > and not for creating and distributing new versions of Euphoria
> > > to the masses. It would involve extra
> > > configuration/packaging/documenting/tech suport
> > > work for me, and I don't think there are very many people,
> > > other than potential competitors,
> > > who would have the ability or desire to modify the translator
> > > in a significant way, though some front-end changes might be easy.
> > > In general, it's quite a bit more complicated than the interpreter.
> > >
> > > It provides me with one of my last "fig leaves" in this
> > > age of openness. 
> > >
> >
> > How about this? You already have an open-source front-end. Now we just
> > have
> > to get to the point where that can really be useful. What I would like, and
> > I
> > think it would increase demand for sales rather than decrease it, is this:
> > allow me or anyone to hack to the front-end to our heart's content, and then
> > allow that front-end to be "plugged in" for use with the translator or
> > binder.
> > We would still need to buy the binder from you to make .il files, and we
> > would still have to register the translator to get rid of the delay. Since
> > the translator is now written in Euphoria, couldn't it actually just run as
> > interpreted Euphoria instead of as an .exe? You could shroud the
> > proprietary
> > parts of it, but allow us to replace the unshrouded front-end source files
> > with our modified versions. Isn't this basically what we can do with the
> > interpreter if we register the source? So let's allow it with the
> > translator
> > too -- a fully user-modifiable front-end that emits the same .il as usual,
> > but
> > arrived at differently because the user has modified the parser, etc. I
> > hope
> > I am explaining clearly...
>
> This is the sort of thing I was also suggesting. RDS doesn't lose on the
> deal because the only thing we would be replacing is the free stuff anyway.
>
> In fact, RDS needs to realize that they have multiple products - the free
> Euphoria-to-IL converter(s) - the front-end, and the not-free binder that
> can bind backend.exe to an IL to create a new .exe file.
>
> I want to support RDS's backend because its very very good. Its just that
> I would like to create the IL using a different tool than the free RDS
> product.
>
> I know that the current IL file format is proprietary but that doesn't
> mean that another, public format, can't be devised and supported by
> bind.exe. In fact, I've already started documenting a file format
> that could become the 'official' standard, after lot's of peer review.
>
> It would be only if RDS refuses to support this idea, that some real
> competition could evolve to challenge RDS's income stream. This is
> a real win-win for all.
I second the motion.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
