OpenEuphoria

Re: Open source Euphoria...

• Posted by Jules <jdavy at dsl.pipe?.co?> Jul 18, 2007
• 729 views

DB James wrote:
> 
> CChris wrote:
> > 
> > Jules wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > 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.
> <SNIP>
> > > 
> 
> Yes, you misunderstood, I think.  Jules was expressing something hard to
> get across, a feeling or intuition.  Saying it a different way, and speaking
> for myself, I would say it is the sense of possible loss of integrity in the
> process of Eu development (not moral integrity, just the integrity of a
> single person, as compared with a group).

yes, It was hard to get across, but you've done it. :)
> 
> > > 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
> 
> Right.  Hence my throwing my opinion in the mix.  I do appreciate the
> comments of Jules and Kenneth Rhodes.  However I admit I have never been
> able to come down on one side or the other of the "forking" of the Eu
> forum according to some criteria -- level of expertise or interest or
> whatever.  Many advantages and disadvantages either way, but even though 
> many do not post, they always can and they should.  CChris expressed concern
> those of more expertise might not read the comments of those with less, but
> the reverse is a possibility too.
> 
> As to the integrity of the development of Euphoria, I wonder if it has to
> do with something Derek has stated and repeated:
> 
> "The case for breaking existing code must be based on actual empirical usage
> and not guessitmates on what and who will be affected.
> 
> "If it turns out that the cost of fixing existing code is too steep then we
> won't change, but if it is not more costly than perpetually having
> non-intuitive constructs then change should be considered."
> 
> If changes in Eu code were done based on empirical evidence...

Not sure what you mean by "empirical evidence"