Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Sep 16, 2004
- 494 views
I second all that Derek said below: On 16 Sep 2004, at 15:03, Derek Parnell wrote: > > > posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > Derek Parnell wrote: > > > Version 2.0 Official Release March 25, 1998 > > > + 12 months > > > Version 2.1 Official Release for WIN32 + DOS32 March 29, 1999 > > > + 10 months > > > Version 2.2 Official Release for WIN32+DOS32 January 14, 2000 > > > + 25 months > > > > During that time I spent a year designing, developing and porting the > > Euphoria to C Translator to 4 platforms and 7 different C compilers. > > I should have merged that information into the release notes. > > > Like I said, a shitload of work. Too much for a one-man team, I'd argue. > > > > Version 2.3 Official Release February 11, 2002 > > > + 18 months > > > Version 2.4 Official Release July 3, 2003 > > > + 18 months? > > > Version 2.5 ?December, 2004? > > > That's right, we have moved from v2.0 to v2.5 in 6.5 years. Not Fast. > > > > Maybe I should call the next one 3.0. Will that help? > > Not one bit. > > > Isn't Win32Lib officially still an "alpha" release, 0.60.5, > > after those same 6.5 years? > > > And I took in on around v0.50. How many releases does that mean? A least > 15 in the same time as your 5. The literal version number is not important. > The > number of releases is a more telling statistic. > > > > RDS is slow to release anything, and they keep declining offers of help. > > > Could this be another reason for people being discouraged? > > > > > > Yes, I know there is a shitload of work to get out a new release, but > > > there is also many able people to help, if only you'd let them. > > > > Yeah, I heard you can produce a baby in 1 month by > > assigning 9 women to the job. > > I know you are not serious about that statement, but that might be > a problem too. It seems that you are saying that your work can never > be helped by using multiple people. Prove it! > > > > > I would prefer a major release every 6 months with weekly minor (patch) > > > releases, instead of this cold molasses. > > > > That's what I keep telling myself. > > It just never works out that way. > > How we we know - we've not seen you try it. > > > There's just a lot of overhead in getting > > a new release out, > > Sure is! You could do with a hand. > > >plus when do I charge for an upgrade? > > Whenever you wanted to. > > > I'll give it some thought. > > Yeah, you do that. So version 2.6 is scheduled for when ... February 2006? > > > > Perfection is not so nearly > > > as important as improvement. Having a perfect product that doesn't meet my > > > needs is not much use. Having a nearly perfect product that I can still > > > use > > > is a much better prospect. > > What? No comment? This seems to be the area of greatest consensus. > > > > Robert, > > > Are you using beta testers? > > > > Every official release comes after an alpha and a beta > > release. Earlier releases would waste my time on > > handling a lot of bug reports and questions. > > Heaven forbid! We wouldn't want to find all those bugs so early would we? > Again, if this is a lot of work, then maybe you could do with help? > > > I have tons of existing Euphoria code I can use as testing fodder. > > I should hope so. This is great for regression testing, but what about > planned test cases, a test plan, a formal Euphoria test suite? > > > > Has anyone impartially inspected or reviewed your code? > > > > Not besides Junko, > <snip> > > >