RE: Digest for EUforum at topica.com, issue 6116
------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
>
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> >
> > Jason Gade wrote:
> > >
> > > Vincent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can see OOEU going head-to-head with Lisp / Prolog / Ruby /
> > > > > PHP / etc now. Only minus the RPN and those(all()).
> > > > >
> > > > > So,, what of all those microeconomy dollars not yet spent?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kat
> > > >
> > > > I sincerely pray that Euphoria doesnt go
> Object-Oriented now. That would really
> > > > add a new level of complexity to the language. An
> Object-Oriented fork by Matt
> > > > would be fine but can we leave the official one procedural?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Vincent
> > >
> > > It's like with the features that you listed in your post
> above but that I disagreed
> > > with -- don't use them. Plus now is not the time to be
> arguing about new features.
> > > It's still too early.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level
> of indirection."
> > > --anonymous
> > > "Any performance problem can be solved by removing a
> level of indirection."
> > > --M. Haertel
> > > "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
> > > --C.A.R. Hoare
> > > j.
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > The way i see it, now we will have a way to add features we want
> > in our own personal 'versions', so why go back to depending on
> > someone else to put in what 'we' each want? That doesnt seem
> > to work very well because there are always conflicts of interests
> > and philosophies.
> > Of course if you dont have the time that's a different story.
> >
> > Gee, now i can make classes that can be included more than once
> > using the same file but a different namespace (or the same namespace
> > in a different include file). Wow, i always wanted to be able
> > to do that with Eu 
> >
> >
> > Al
> >
> > E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
> >
> >
> > My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
> >
>
> Well of course you can always modify the source to meet your
> specific needs. That's the whole idea behind open source! You
> can even share it freely.
>
> However I would hate to see the "official version" split into
> a dozen different dialects or (less likely) have a few
> hundred archive entries that say "requires Al Getz's version
> of Euphoria v3.12a".
>
> --
> "Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of
> indirection."
> --anonymous
> "Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of
> indirection."
> --M. Haertel
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
> --C.A.R. Hoare
> j.
>
This is bound to happen at the beginning,. I think it is a necessary,
healthy part of the transition, and may last for a couple years.
Then, according to who uses and don't use one of the dozen versions that may
sprout up, it will
boil down to 2 or 3 versions being collectively maintained, plus a galaxy of
own use versions we don't have to care about as far as the future of the
language is concerned.
Or rather we should see them as experimental labs for features or
implementations that "major" versions would benefit from.
So yes, you'll see entries with "need version 3.14159". So what? How many
slightly incompatible versions of Linux are there around? If the
contribution is useful, it may either pull the version it was made with
ahead, or stir someone to porting it to a more mainstream version. Can't see
an issue there.
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
