OpenEuphoria

Re: Standardized Euphoria

• Posted by cchris005 at fastmail.fm Dec 24, 2006
• 713 views

> 
> Subject: Re: Standardized Euphoria
> 
> 
> posted by: Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
> 
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > "1. Besides additional functionality, I would prefer to redesign/reorganize
> > the
> > existing libs. Would this be acceptable to people?
> 
> Do you mean change the current include files so they aren't compatible
> with 
> the current version?
> 
> I'd say no to this.
> 
> Make your new libs based on the old ones (make copies and rename to
> something
> else) go crazy, go nuts break all compatibility if you want.  If they
> turn out
> to be superior they will eventually replace the current versions.  BUT
> don't
> change the current libs without the alternative released, tested and 
> documented well before it becomes "official".
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ray Smith
> http://RaymondSmith.com
> 

Let's not get nuts about this compatibility breaking.

Does it make sense to have more useful features in a language, yet
abstain to change the form (arguments, return values...) of standard
library routines written 10 years before?

I'd say no to this.

Does it make sense to keep the organisation of routines or symbols
inside files the same when the scope covered by the libraries grows, the
technical environment changed so much (who still draws ellipses under
DOS, or in text mode for that matter?)?

I'd say no to this.

I'd say you are both right. 

We are at a turning point in the history of Euphoria, and it is probably
the right time to make substantial changes and reorganisations, some of
which may break some backward compatibility. Otherwise, Eu will remain
compatible with 386 machines and will end in the dump as well.

However, this must done with great care:
* testing and documentation must be impeccable;
* mechanisms must be there to allow say 95% of legacy code to keep
running, perhaps less efficiently;
* As a community, we should collectively help in porting or rewriting
the tricky pieces of code which are in use and would be left on the
roadside even with the abovementioned mechanisms on.

As for examples of stuff which could help enhancing and reorganising the
current basic functionalities, you may glance at various files in
oedoc.free.fr/Fichiers/ESL/  Since the project seems to go nowhere, let
it be a part of the hopefully upcoming lift-up.

CChris
-- 
  
  cchris005 at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web