Re: Open source Euphoria...
Jules wrote:
>
> Although I'm a fan of the open source philosophy, being at the "sharp end",
> so to speak over the last few months has highlighted some issues which have
> taken the shine off somewhat.
>
I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis, but let us see why in more detail.
> I speak from the point of view of a "Joe User", and it seems to me that the
> focus has moved from that of the user to that of the developer. That's fine,
> but I'd like to see (and I think this may have been mentioned before) a forum
> which makes a distinction between the two. It can be intimidating for a newbie
> or casual user to come to a forum where the content is dominated by detailed
> technical discussion on the merits or otherwise of some change to Euphoria
> internals,
> and reinforces the widely held notion that open source is for the technocratic
> elite.
I'll second o you on this one. The only potential pitfall is that developers
might forget to go read the user forum often enough. We must be aware of it and
proceed anyway. This has been a recurring demand.
>
> Secondly, I feel a certain disempowerment since Eu went open source, a certain
> lack of control - which comes, paradoxically, from the perception that I have
> more control (after all, Eu is open source, so it belongs to me as much as
> anyone
> else right?).
Do you really need being controlled? I feel sorry for you. Or misunderstood you.
> When it was proprietary product, I just payed my registration
> every upgrade and forgot about it. It was Rob's business to take care of the
> bug fixes, new features etc, and I trusted him to do that.
And oft requested features weren't introduced.
>
> In a recent post (sequence ops) Rob finished with the words: "So what should
> we do? That's up to you!" Well, that's great, but what if you don't have a
> extensive
> knowledge of C, or a background in compiler design? and don't have the time
> and/or inclination to learn?
The whole community doesn't need to have the time, skill and knowledge. Rob said
it better than I in a rather recent post about cooperative problem solving.
I think our current problem is the lack of enough people with time, knowledge
and motivation. I've been here for only 5 years, and have seen a fair amount of
people with these abilities leaving because the language had been stagnating so
much.
Further, did Rob hint that he would no longer help in the continuing
development? I don't think he did.
>
> Like most "users", all I'm really interested in is having a product which just
> works, is reliable and (importantly) doesn't radically depart from the
> principles
> which attracted me to it in the first place. That last point is worth
> emphasising,
> I spent a considerable amount of time looking for a programming language that
> suited my needs, and I found it in Euphoria. The last thing I want to see is
> "feature creep".
>
I'd describe the current state as "feature catch up" rather. Feature creep isn't
good, but is still very remote.
Things that wouldn't benefit much from being done inside the interpreter shoud
be left outside so as to be used on demand, and without any impact on the
interpreter, by including files, be them standard or not. But abilities that
cannot be implemented efficiently enough from outside should be implemented
inside instead of being simply left out.
> One thing I've never really understood about programmers is this need to
> ceaselessly
> "improve" their programs. Why is a program never just finished? There comes
> a point when further "improvement" becomes feature creep. What's wrong with
> having a clean and simple language which does a few things very well?
The fact that it does so many things so awkwardly, or not at all, besides.
Programs which hardly anyone uses get finished and gather dust. Programs that
are useful are used up to and beyond their initial scope, limits and intent,
stirring demands for pushing them further. So, as you are asking "why", I'd
answer: because their products and themselves are alive, not lying dead on a
shelf. Growth is healthy, overgrowth eventually kills, undergrowth surelykills.
> This concept
> is key to the longevity and success of Unix - simple tools which do one thing
> well.
You said success? In some very specific software compartments, mostly networking
as far as I know, that's true. In the public at large, I don't think the word
faithfully describes the reality.
>
> Sorry, this seems to have turned into a rant. :) but I'm sure I've articulated
> some thoughts that are in the minds of other Eu users.
Rants hardly help, confrontation and discussion often do, in my experience.
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
