Re: Feature management
Alan Oxley wrote:
[snip]
> You get the idea. My scores are just an example.
> So if feature X scores more than feature Y, do X first. Minimum score
> to implement any feature should be 100.
> Of course, this won't stop anybody thats keen on a feature from sending
> their code in anyway but should be considered for official blessing.
>
> Am I smoking my socks, or would this be a good idea?
You're smoking more than just your socks, dude! ;)) just kidding...
I agree....some form of prioritizing should be used. However, IMHO, I think
that at this stage of the game we, as a community should agree as to what
*purpose*
Should Euphoria be morphed and optimized for:
1. x-platform games programming
2. x-platform web-development and backend
3. other x-platform GUI apps
4. x-platform embedded systems
5. x-platform general programming/scripting (like Perl maybe)
6. whatever.....
Once we have a plan for Euphoria, then it will be a bit easier to define the
language requirements.
The context in which this morphing/optimizing will occur (i.e. OOP or no)
will have to be decided next. Some languages have an OOP extension - a super
library - that you include/require in order to do your OOP thing. Maybe that
could be the way to go.
But we need a plan. IF we want IT managers to show some interest in Euphoria,
then Euphoria must provide something *other* than speed. To date, the
programming community at large are not breaking the door down wanting to get
a copy of Euphoria. But maybe the Euphoria Community doesn't want that. Maybe
all that's needed by this community is the status quo! If that's the case, then
the more adventuresome folks in this community will have to do what the
folks in the Icon language community did -- they picked up there toys and left
to fork an off-shoot language called Unicon. I'm told that now, both communities
play nice together, and life's good. Might need to happen here!
--
duke
http://www.rootshell.be/~perlster/euphoria/
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
