OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu OpenSource Vision

• Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM> Oct 01, 2001
• 386 views

Martin Stachon wrote:

> I think it is a difference if a library is written by
> a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people
> improving the product every day.

Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"?

> I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So
> many useful programs and libraries are for free.
> Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are
> doing it just for their good feeling they're
> doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame

Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are
far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than
there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship,
many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord,
wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship.


>> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind
>> a single coding style.
>
> For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style.
> I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming
> variables - it would be confusing to have a library with
> fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar()

I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt
you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world,
people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this:

   while (1)
   {
      /* code */
   }

versus:

   while (1) {
      /* code *
   }


>> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue.
>
> But it would be good, especially with larger projects.

Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone could
write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches.


>> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away?
>
> A few of commercial products have been given to public.
> Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing
> the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers,
> hopefully, from other languages.

I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register
Euphoria than the ability to bind it.

I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given
the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free, I'd
like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users -
apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.


> (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some
> 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software.

So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on
Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in mind
that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'.


> Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make
> some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc.

Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would be
no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond
would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene


> Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator
> (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob
> would have more time.

When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is on
Robert.


> Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future.

If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is
one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales value.
I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would be
great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue.

I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently
available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was no
rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a
pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like E2C).

-- David Cuny