Re: Source changes
Gary Shingles wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
> > Neither, just saying that a veto is a very powerful weapon and that the
> > fewer
> > people have it, the better. Many ideas only need improvements, not a veto,
> > and
> > a dynamic, constructive community is usually a good source of them.
> > You should perhaps visit other language forums/lists to get the idea.
>
> I think lodging 'objections' to a proposed change with good documentation is
> healthy. Then perhaps rationalising the objections with further discussion
> and/or voting. Wiki-style is good, keeps everything together.
>
> Ultimately, if someone wants to go off and code something that is useful to
> them in their mind, the law of averages holds that it will be useful to
> someone
> else. If it means those people have to fork off, so to speak, then wouldn't
> it make sense to use the same code base and develop forks side by side, such
> that the trunk is the official interpreter and you have e.g. a candidate
> branch,
> russian branch, then a "newphoria" branch, etc etc. The forks could be
> released
> and supported via separate websites/forums etc but still benefit from new
> developments
> on the trunk, and possibly vice-versa creating a whole slew of 'euphoric'
> languages.
>
> Gary
Although some details would have to be laid out in more detail, I'd certainly
agree in general terms with this scheme.
One of the issues is that, even if branches are available and hold such
development, allowing some healthy cross-breeding, people will need to:
* go take a look at the repository branches (Tortoise SVN is esay, at least the
GUI version or Windows. There are other clients, prehaps more convenient to us on
other platforms);
* build a relevant interpreter. That could be the roadblock, as the maintainer
of the branch may not have the tools to build all of ex.exe, exw.exe and exu, and
not everyone has a C compiler at the ready.
<side question>
How can I build exu under Windows?
</side quetion>
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
