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 > > >