Re: Open source Euphoria...
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).
>
Well... I tend to mistrust any single person by instinct, and found out that
groups err less often, unless they are too large. So small wonder I
misunderstood, since it seems that I don't have the same intuitions <smile/>
Sorry for that, Jules.
> > > 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.
>
Yes, but far less serious.
I have jnown Joe User for years, and his habit is not to care until he happens
to need something unusual. And be surprised that it doesn't come out of the box.
Since developers are supposed to work for the community, they ought to stay
informed of the users' requests, while the users only should keep an eye on
developments.
> 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 in favor of
> a proposed improvement, and demonstrated to the community as a better way,
> then the integrity problem would go away, and those of lesser expertise
> (like me) would feel more a part of the process.
>
> --Quark
Definitely.
Problem is, if someone knows only about one sort of programming/apps, that
someone will usually reject whatever isn't of direct use to him. Hence, even
empirical evidence, which I have pushed for being the almost only criterium to
assess a change, may not be enough.
That's why I also usually promote additions, not changes that would break
existing code. I'm not against them, but think there should be a very solid
reason and large benefits to do so.
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
