OpenEuphoria

Re: Feature management

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Jan 09, 2007
• 556 views

duke normandin wrote:
> 
> Ray Smith wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Duke,
> > 
> > duke normandin wrote:
> > > 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* 
> > 
> > Open Source development doesn't really work this way.
> > What usually happens is that someone proposes a change, it's discussed for
> > awhile, if most people agree the person who suggests it implements it.
> > You can't tell someone what to do unless you pay them ;)
> > Even a very insignificant change will get done before a very important one
> > if  someone is willing to do it.
> 
> I disagree! FreeBSD is a good example! Lots of discussion went on about which
> direction FBSD should go. Lots of disagreement ensued. That gave birth to
> PCBSD
> and DragonflyBSD. Same thing happened with the Icon programming language. Some
> wanted OOP lots didn't. The OOP people took the Icon code and made Unicon.
> 
> And nobody's telling *anybody* what to do here. Where did *that* come from?

I agree with Duke here.
People can discuss and implement whatever they want to, but the project is not
obligated to adopt it.

In general yes, most opensource projects are pretty ad-hoc and lack proper
project management. Well managed projects though have plans. Goals, milestones,
criteria, etc.


> > > 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.....
> > 
> > In *most* cases specific functionality for particular *types* of software
> > is provided by libraries.
> 
> I agree! Library provide tools but it doesn't optimize a language for string
> handling e.g. - if web development was the language's prime purpose. You'll
> never make PHP into Tcl/Tk. Ramus didn't write PHP to do that.
> 
> > It's best to listen to the library creators to help them develop libraries
> > that everyone else will use.
> 
> I think it is best that the library creators listen to the language's
> community
> if their goal is to provide libraries for the community. That being said, they
> can write all the tools they want for their own use and make them available
> to all if they so desire.

I think you are both right on this point. The creators and the community need to
cooperate with each other.

I have developed a set of standard libraries for example. But I made them mostly
for my needs and as a prototype for proof of concept, so they are quite biased.
While they are standard functionality to me, it may not be to others. And I can't
cater to areas of programming that I don't frequently use without knowing what
others need and want. On the other hand, I can't provide what others need unless
they contribute ideas and opinions and possibly assist with areas where I lack
experience.

Chris Bensler
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
http://empire.iwireweb.com - Empire for Euphoria