OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu OpenSource Vision

• Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Oct 01, 2001
• 386 views

David:
I have not heard before of this version of Euphoria that Pete Eberlein
wrote. Will you please comment more extensively on it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Eu OpenSource Vision


>
> 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
>
>
>