Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
C Bouzy wrote:
> Yes I know, and that is why I said EU is not truly open source. The PD
> back-end is not the same as the RDS C back-end, and because of this users
> do little to improve the PD source. I stated in a previous post Robert
> could have easily kept everything in C and released that as open source.
He doesn't want to do that! He knows that if he did, his official Euphoria
interpreters are history and his buisness would be in jeopardy of failing,
because it would become a daunting challenge to support all the new flavors of
Euphoria and provide customer support.
Besides, do you think Robert would have any pleasure in doing that? Do you think
he could keep up for very long? Would he eventually have to offer free customer
support?
He couldn't charge much, otherwise the open-source community would just make
their own free binders and/or translators. I think they would do it anyway just
to make "everything" free and open-source. If that were to happen, then Robert
and Junko would be basically forced to retire from Euphoria completely.
> Ok you are confused by the point I was making. If Robert wanted EU to be truly
> open source eg: public domain, he would not have converted the RDS C version
> to a slower EU version. He could have just released the original version as
He doesn't want it "completely" open-source. Based on messages he posted years
ago, he wasn't even considering to touch the idea until fairly recently.
Back-end = Optimized C
Optimized C = Very fast
Very fast = Bad for RDS if OS
Understand the relationship?
Your just asking RDS to offer the fast back-end source; but inadvertantly means
"take a long walk on a short pier" to RDS. Naturally RDS is declined to do that.
> I understand you are stating the C back-end is RDS way of keeping control,
> and I agree with you, but I also think the C back-end should also be open
> source with no limitations. Why even bother with open source if you really
> do not want people to create different flavors of EU?
I think people have asked RDS to "open up" over the years. Thats precisely what
they did; but just not so much to point where it would greatly risk their
company.
I'm suprized by some of you people keep complaining about this after RDS made
great strides to share their code and even offer Euphoria for FREE.
They obviously didn't have to do anything, but they did and people are still
complaining; I'm sure... *sigh*!
> The sad fact is including or excluding the source code is not going to matter
> much.
Your right it doesn't. People are developing Euphoria clones from scratch as
well. I can think of two people developing them now: Alexander Toresson and Derek
Parnell.
It has been proven over the years that "clones" are not a big threat to RDS. The
main reason for this is because none of them were proven as fast or stable as
official Euphoria. Another reason is some of them added so many uncompatable
features, that things became ugly and people ultimently lost interest.
> I do not understand your point, you do not have to use the other version,
> just use the original version. You are not the first to make this statement
> and I just do not understand the reasoning behind it. If I created a Windows
> only EU, with elements dedicated to Windows development, and this is not
> something you are interested in, you do not have to use my version.
Well I can tell you right now I'd never use a Windows only Euphoria. Microsoft's
development tools are among the best for developing on the operating system they
have created. The Express editions don't cost that much either: $49 (I think).
Besides what if it turns out that only one or two open-source versions spawn
from the release of the source code? We wouldn't have much choice would we? We
either use a unsupported version of RDS Euphoria or one of the few open-source
ones, that could be loaded with features we don't need but still be inflicted
upon us.
Regards,
Vincent
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
