h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
b=mm2sbKsaekFQZEs+zhxzZoPx7s664RQqzKZzBbWRFresp3eZAl2/uTmo6JAKtY3G9SsGb/fWq/OSsITuFVHcmlMDSZc0o5QzUlmPAkd81Xc26Bgdou4X8QaZPBO7gmJzt68SrF8x1+u7Ngp5bvU/dj08wfwssU2BEj/DmMks/TM
Received: by 10.38.14.9 with SMTP id 9mr2012327rnn;
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.38.164.32 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d9b6453f041020053641acd57f at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:36:57 +1000
From: Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com>
To: euforum at topica.com
Subject: Re: include statement bugs
In-Reply-To: <994106388-1463792638-1098272829 at boing.topica.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <994106388-1463792638-1098272829 at boing.topica.com>
Igor, your behaviour is boorish and rude. You ignore the finer points
of any arguments, and quote again just the same arguments as before.
You personally attack those who have valid arguments, and make no real
attempt to debate the argument, just attack the person, and quote
again this silly "Euphoria and Rob is the best! Those who oppose it
are stupid!1!" propaganda... It's worse than I'd expect from a rabid
republican.
Firstly:
I'm not talking about libraries. REALLY. I never was. If you had read
my arguments properly, you'd have seen this. Nobody else is going to
make a library named win32lib.ew, then complain that they can't use
both.
Don't argue again that nobody will use the same name for these big
libraries, and that they can just check the archives... You'll look
foolish.
I'm talking about the little files that are within a library...
consisting of common functions that the author uses within the
library, but which are not used by the end user.
> > However, a library written by "Alfred" (And don't ask me who Alfred
> > is, this is an EXAMPLE) uses a little include called tree.e to
> > accomplish its purpose.
>
> OK, I just think that Alfred was clever enough to see the *existing*
> libraries *before* his work on *new* one.
I'm *not* talking about Alfred's library. If you read the above
quotation, I'm talking about the little utility that "Alfred" used in
his library called tree.e.
(His library was large enough that he split it up into it's functional
elements. tree.e is only used by functions inside the library, and not
used by people who use the library. ) (This is just exposition... any
large library I build may well have a need for this arrangement)
Secondly:
> Our Chris is the very-very clever boy, he learned that "crappy Rob's
> Euphoria" and now wants to have his own one.
> Ok, what a problem, Karl has, Matt has, there is unlimited alphabet
> Euphoria.
Personal attacks - and completely unfounded. Nobody here wants to
claim Euphoria as their own. We just want a tool that is free of
problems.
> Just Chris wanted such the feature for his strongly concrete purposes
> - first of all to replace the standard copyrighted stuff.
>
> Remember please again, these standard libraries were *stamped* by RDS for a
> while. Then Rob deleted these encrypted stamps - you can see one of results
> now.
You have no idea do you... the 'encrypted stamps' don't have any
effect in regards to copyright. And not only standard libraries had
stamps. I recall win32lib had it for a while.
Any serious Euphoria user will be registered...
> > - It is not *my* responsibility to go and change alfred's or johnny's
> > library so that this doesn't happen. Even if I changed the name of
> > "tree.e", I'd have to go through an entire library changing all of the
> > names over. And now, it wouldn't be compatible with the real version
> > of the library. Every time one of them releases a new version, I'd
> > have to do it again.
>
> If and if and if and if .....
Actually, I can only count 1 'if' in that sentence. There's a few
'it's, but that means something different.
> > - If it's the responsibility of anyone, it's Rob.
> Yes, Rob hardly knows his responsibility for Euphoria and protects
> his own intellectual and material rights as a real expert and excellent
> master, I think.
Nice boot-licking.
> > > 2. The name of a file is its copyright attribute.
> > > Authors love the names of their files, routines, constants,
> > > variables. I have investigated the big EU libs - win32lib,
> w32engin,
> > > some others. 11000 names. The name conflicts are very-very rare.
You've looked at 11,000 euphoria files? Right.
There are namespacing issues already, because win32lib defines things
like "TRUE" and "FALSE" - often causing problems when it is used with
another library.
> > Really? So, whom does 'ini.e' belong to? Who owns the name 'struct.e'?
> > win32lib is known, and noone will else will use that name. However,
> > many names are generic, and if the programmers think logically when
> > they write a library, utility files are quite likely to exist with the
> > same name.
>
> Yes, really, the copyrighted stuff *must* to have its own name.
> And if you do see the copyrighted existing 'struct.e' and want your
> own similar library, the best way is to use the *new* good name to avoid
> any confusion first of all.
I am *NOT* talking about the libraries that people include directly.
> > A NAME is not intellectual property. It never is, if you had any idea
> > about legal mumbo jumbo.
> > A NAME can be a trademark. However, you cannot trademark generic
> > terms. Noone can trademark the name "math.e", because it is a generic
> > term.
>
> The name and product are indivisible.
> And there are the protected names - trademarks.
> If you care, you can register the name of your program, but it is the very
> expensive thing.
> No one care here, as I can see, we just respect the rights on the name
> without registration. The case with Chris is single and first as far as I
> know.
Again... I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LIBRARIES THEMSELVES. I'm talking
about files that the library uses... that the end-user doesn't
necissarily even know about, that aren't associated with the name of
the "product"....
> > > 3. RDS's 'hack' is very good in those regards.
> > > There are no any scandals in our community about the
> > > intellectual properties - it is just impossible thing,
*bzzzzzrt*
You're off track again...
> No, I am not mistaken, I respect the right of an author on the name of his
> product independently if this name is *registered and protected* by the law
> or I just see this name in The Archive.
> There is no difference for me - author is author. If he was the very first
> - he is the very first foreve.
*bzzzzzrt*
I'm not talking about the 'product'.
> > >2. It is illogical. There is no supporting argument for keeping it as-is
>
> My arguments see please above and below.
None of which actually address the point. This needs to be addressed
from a namespacing issue, you realise? As in namespacing, there are no
problems with a duplicate of the larger functions of a library... it's
a problem of the little things. Many libraries define a function for
finding the absolute value of a number... Guess how many of them call
it abs()? It's the little things.
> > >3. It makes using third-party libraries more difficult.
>
> No, there is no such the third-party libraries at all.
> You have nothing to use this way.
That makes no sense. Do you know what third-party means?
> > As well, fixing this HACK would ensure that these problems as
> > described above do not occur. Igor, can you give me even a single
> > example where remedying it would cause problems?
>
> No one is going to create the libraries with the identical names now.
> Clever boys do not want, the very-very clever boy wants, but can not.
> I do not think Rob wants to implement this strange useless feature
> in the standard EU.
Strange useless feature? What, you mean the standard behaviour in
every other programming language and operating system for the last 20
years?
> What do you want, MrTrick?
>
> What about fish & chips? 
No thank you, I already ate. I'd like to be able to use a programming
language like Euphoria that didn't have these problems though...
> > And Rob, you have this annoying habit of being a wallflower whenever a
> > discussion comes up about the language itself. I know you are proud of
> > Euphoria, and you have every right to be, but don't pretend that it's
> > perfect, and that every action you have ever made regarding the
> > language is correct. Please weigh in on this issue. Do *you* have any
> > opinion regarding why it shouldn't be changed?
>
> Let us respect the Rob's intellectual rights on his Euphoria.
> He is the author of that excellent language.
> Life is life, no?
No, not really.
> I just do not like if some too clever boy returns from the vacation and
> says - all around is shit, crap, shitty crap, crappy shit, I'll replace
> all that just now with my own big one, but only under YOURS NAME,
> hurry up Rob, implement this for me just now, I love your Euphoria
> more than you do love, stupid Rob.
>
> And this too clever boy just forgot his naive questions to this
> list years ago.
How about... 'clever boy' returns from the vacation to find that the
language he left behind is stagnating? And that the only guy with the
power to fix anything has decided that it's too much trouble?
--
MrTrick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
