take a step back
At the risk of getting flamed again for posting to this list, I
thought I'd provide some
of my own input...
In regard to the 'standardized' set of include files that has been
once again mentioned,I
did partake in a couple different projects aimed at doing just that.
Part of the problem is
the lack of acceptance by the community in general. A few people
usually seem interested,
but then there are incompatabilites, and for that reason nobody want
to use them at all.
There are bound to be incompatabilities with a new or standardized set
of includes, and alot
of the files in the archive will probably not be useable with the new
set, but in the interest
of progress, they should either be updated by the original authors
(resubmitted), or if
there's no interest in doing that, then consider that they probably
wouldn't be supported
or enhanced in the future anyway, and are obsolete.
Without a standardized set of includes, there's no need to even
mention the windows
libraries/wrappers. I wrote my own set of wrappers a few years ago,
and at that time I
abandoned the use of the includes that came with the interpreter. They
don't provide all
the necessary low-level functionality that is needed for my windows
library to function,
and in creating a set of includes to support them, I created a set of
libraries that was
completely incompatible with the standard includes.
At one time I was hoping that some of the lower-level includes I had
written would be adopted
or re-used, possibly even enhanced or developed further. It has become
painfully apparent
that there are very few people in the community that would even
consider such an idea. Most
would rather complain about the incompatabilities, and either have me
spend my time re-writing
the same code over and over, or simply write their own based on what
I've already done, from
the ground up.
That endless circle of coding is what keeps Euphoria where it is. It's
not that the code
isn't already out there, and it's not that it couldn't be done, it's
the fact that regardless
of what's written, it's immediatly abandoned or criticised because
some file that was submitted
to the archive years ago conflicts with it, or that it wasn't done as
the 'user' who is
interested in using it would have done it, and it's re-written to suit
their opinion of what
it should be.
Jason
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
