Re: Broken Euphoria
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Assuming that there is a bunch of closed source versions. That's a pretty big
> maybe though.
>
> How is that worse than having a single version that never gives you the
> opportunity
> to even choose to use those features because they are never thought of or
> don't
> fit into the Eu model?
If a LGPL based license is used it doesn't mean there will only be 1 version.
It just means the source will be available for all versions.
Everyone can still go and make there own version with whatever features
they desire ... they just can't distribute the langauge without giving users
access to the source code.
> You would rather force people to use the official Eu, even if it's inferior?
see above .. there can still be forks ... LGPL'd licenses make it easier to
merge the changes back to an "offical" version.
> How many people choose to use Eu instead of some other mainstream language?
compared to how many people are programming, not many choose to use Euphoria. :(
> YOu don't think those forks will attract new users? Many of whom will likely
> migrate to the official version.
There can still be new forks .. see above
> The main thing is not being locked into an agreement that will severly limit
> the amount of participation. Even if that participation is not directly
> applied
> to the opensource Eu, it is still going to benefit.
Each user of a closed source fork is locked into an agreement with the author.
> In the end there probably would be 2 or 3 different forks that manage to get
> a foothold and remain unique enough to have their own following. .
The current and potential Euphoria user base isn't big enough to have 2 or 3
seperate versions. It's ok to have different distributions (like the activestate
example fo Perl and Python) ... but they add value to the open source version,
not a new slightly different versions).
>You know it
> Ray, it's been like your motto: "no language is suitabe for every person and
> every task" :)
People aren't going to choose 2 slightly different versions of Eu for different
tasks ... they will choose Java or C# or Python.
> Yes, I'm pleased that Eu's future is secured.
> I hate to say it but I predicted that Eu wouldn't go much further than v3.0
> Not being negative, but from a practical point of view guaging by eu's history
> and progress. My biggest problem with Eu has always been that I'm constantly
> developing for the language instead of my own apps because Eu's community is
> too small to provide an adequate selection. My motivation has always been to
> make Eu more popular. A language can't survive without a codebase. If that
> were
> at all practical, I would make my own language and who cares if anyone else
> uses it.
Open Sourcing Eu isn't a silver bullet ... there is still much to be done before
Euphoria becomes widely used ... years in fact ... this is just the beginning.
Euphoria may have (for example) a 0.01% user base ... in 2 years it might grow
to 0.1% .. I think that would be considered a success ;)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
