Re: .il code/file questions
Let me see here for a moment whats going on, just to see if I properly
understand it all.
2.5 is
1. Addition of $ shorthand
2. front end euphoria parser Public Domain
3. New Backend.exe and BACKENDW.EXE thingies
Ok, now 1 is well understood.
2, the front end being PD is good, but can't be changed and still be
able to bind/translate output bad, i guess change=slow eueu thing.
3, totally not understanding purpose, I guess there for binding too,
but why are the in the public package if they can't be used without
Registering?
Perhaps I'm totally confused, so get your marketing people to start a
consumer education program, or clearly outline these things somewhere,
please.
Daniel
PS. I'm really happy that euphoria is taking some major steps, I just
can't quite tell where it's going.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:23:33 -0800, Andy Serpa <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> posted by: Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com>
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > Pete Lomax wrote:
> > > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point.
> >
> > At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot.
> > I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling
> > the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for
> > a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways
> > of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better
> > decision when some people actually start to do something with
> > the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better
> > by that time what they can do, and what they want to do.
> > If what they want to do is take full control of the source,
> > add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put
> > me out of business, they'll have a long wait.
> >
>
> I'm really having a tough time figuring out where the threat to your business
> comes from. People can already create modified versions of the interpreter than
> run at full speed by buying the source from you. So your defensive strategy is
> to make sure that doing that is not useful for anything? I for one was ready to
> plunk down my money for the source, the binder, & the translator, but now knowing
> that I won't actually be able to use the binder or the source for any useful
> purpose -- i.e. create executables / actually be able to develop software --
> what's the point? This effectively reduces the "purposeful" new features of 2.5
> to crash_routine() and the $ shorthand symbol. So now I wondering if I should
> even bother using 2.5 at all. What we're proposing creates a demand for your
> binder since it would be the only way to run .il code at full speed. This all
> seems so obvious I have a hard time accepting that you even understand what we
> mean.
>
> Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents length(this
> sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some other stuff like that to
> cut down on my own typing. So I modify the front-end to add some new shorthand.
> For instance, maybe I'd have:
>
> s &&= x
>
> be equivalent to: s = append(s,x).
>
> And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this:
>
> integer x = 4.
>
> Just basic pre-processor type stuff.
>
> Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because now I
> can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. So if I can't
> even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting to add more complex new
> features (new functions, built-in support for external libraries, etc.) is also
> out of the question.
>
> So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your binder
> or translator still in order to do the binding or translating? Your .il format
> can remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the problem? You keep
> talking about people releasing enhanced versions of the language itself, but
> anyone CAN ALREADY DO THAT by buying the source from you (and breaking the
> license, of course). How is this a new or different threat?
>
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
