Re: Euphoria needs more popularity!
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>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
