Re: Open source Euphoria...
Jules wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I probably could have been more clear on this point. Maybe an analogy will
> help.
> If I was a mechanic, why would I take my car to a garage for maintainence,
> repairs,
> or adding a rear spoiler? But I'm not a mechanic, nor do I particular enjoy
> digging around under the hood. I just use my car as a means of getting from
> A to B. I'd rather pay my local mechanic so I don't have to think about
> anything
> other than that.
> I think "controlled" is one of those value-laden words. We are all
> "controlled"
> in one way or another. I prefer to say "I would rather let someone else take
> that responsibility so I don't have to think about it".
>
Ok. Now you have more mechanics to talk to. And not getting involved in
something you use or need is imho the best definition of disempowerment, so we
agree, at least formally.
> > > 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.
>
> I never had a problem with that, maybe because I'm not a professional
> programmer
> and haven't had experiences with other programming languages (Only BASIC prior
> to Eu), so didn't really know what I was missing, perhaps.
I'm not a professional either.
What may make me think differently from a large part of the community is that I
was never exposed to BASIC. Oh yes, in high school, 25 years ago.
> >
> > >
> > > 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'd like to read that post.
Date: 2007 Jul 2 17:12
Unfortunately, the exact message number doesn't appear in the search EuForum
pages, or I didn't see it. (Ping Rob...)
> >
> > 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.
>
> But everyone has different ideas about what features should or should not be
> implemented - and relatively few of us are able to understand the consequences
> of this or that feature. I like the minimalist nature of Euphoria, sometimes
> I'll go weeks without coding - it's very easy to pick up after an absence.
Well, this very minimalism caused me to consider leaving it a few times, and it
may still happen.
I don't think introducing a feature often has major consequences on further use
and development. These fears are apparent, largely unsubstantiated and probably
harmful.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I guess I just don't get it. If something is used and found to be useful is
> it "dead" because it isn't being continually improved?
If it is useful, its range of uses will be extended by users. And that's how it
will improve.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> well, we are having a discussion aren't we? :)
>
Yes :)
> If Rob hasn't made changes under pressure before Eu went open source, why
> would
> he do so now? he hasn't come up with any suggestions himself regarding
> improvements,
> but rather reacts only to suggestions made by others (this is not a criticism
> btw).
He has positioned himself as benevolent overseer, and I wouldn't criticise this.
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
