OpenEuphoria

Re: Broken Euphoria

• Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Sep 28, 2006
• 1269 views

Derek Parnell wrote:

> Speaking only for myself, you have it wrong, Vincent. I started working on my
> Euphoria clone *because* of the past position of RDS with respect to
> collabarative
> work on Euphoria - there was none. 
> 
> I will continue with it because its started, because it will teach me things,
> because it can be a 'playground' for experimentation, because others might
> like
> it. This does not automatically mean that I will not also try to assist RDS
> with the Open Euphoria concept. In fact, I intend to help RDS improve the
> Euphoria
> ('offical edition') language, if Robert will let me. 

Ok ok.. perhaps I misjudged you. I'm sure RDS would apprechiate your help after
witnessing how well you managed the Win32Lib project. BTW, when do anticipate
releasing the next version? I remember you saying within two weeks, several
months ago. 

> And yet, I would have thought that one thing you could do is contribute ideas.
> And you could always learn C if you wanted to help.

Well I mean I could do front-end changes and implement some of my VEEU front-end
features but someone will need to manage the C back-end and translate my
execute.e changes.

> And exactly why is that a bad thing? Firstly, they can do that now with out
> seeing RDS's implementation of Euphoria. Secondly, Euphoria can also now
> implement the better things found in other languages.

Well that depends on the license Rob chooses. If Robert goes with public-domain,
language developers could take the source they want and  license it under
whatever complies with the rest of their language. Yet Robert can't do the same
without complying with licensing terms governing source code from different
languages. This could mean that Euphoria would need to change from public-domain
to a compatible license to satisfy the requirements or refrain from using their
source-code.
  
> Not likely. The '20 Euphoria dervived languages' are more likely to wither
> than the standard release.

No because most of these derivatives would have benefits over the official
language and would attract many from the exsiting user-base (assuming they are
open-source like the official implementation).

Robert and a couple contributers couldn't compete against 20 or more other FOSS
derivatives.


Regards,
Vincent