Re: A Portable API for Euphoria
> That's a good question. I can't give a definitive answer right now.
> I would like to see a version of Euphoria running on Linux and
> the Mac, but there are difficult issues that I haven't resolved yet.
> Such as:
> - who is going to do it? Me? Junko? Someone I authorize?
> Should I just release the core source to the world (minus
> the DOS/Windows-specific code)?
> - will it be totally free, or will there be a registered version?
> - who controls the evolution of the language? Will there be
> 17 different flavors of Euphoria floating around?
> If someone other than myself does a port, I'm sure
> they will need a lot of my help to get started. The code was designed
> more for speed than for portability. It uses some WATCOM-specific
> routines and features, although when I first ported from Atari to PC
> I got it compiled and running using GNU C, before switching to
> WATCOM.
> Compared to DOS+Windows, Linux and Mac are both small
> markets. I suspect that most
> Linux people expect to get their programming languages,
> and everything else, completely free including
> full source code (Perl, Python, GNU, etc.).
well, Linux is a subset of Unix... very important to remember for the
moment... as far as Watcom C is concerned, take out all the
intrinsicly specific code to watcom C and you have 'generic' C
which will compile on any C compiler for any platform...
little bit of tweaking will be needed o'course...
in other words...
strip the specific and it will port easily...
and there will be multiple versions of euphoria needed
for each subset of Unix, or at least multiple makefiles
(which produce multiple versions anyway--of course)
now speed....heh... going back to generic code will then
prompt the necessity of optimizing for each subset...
I wouldn't worry about that, if I were you Rob...
there are enough proficient coders out there that will
tweak *anything* *anyway* just for sh_ts and giggles...
putting the Inet to work for you will take the burden from you...
catch22 is avoided because the sloppy versions that come about will
automatically be 'filtered' out once it's discovered that it's a
sloppy port for that particular Unix variant...
so, this covers the how and who...the two simpler questions you
proffered...
should it be free? Euphoria share/freeware already is...
perhaps the non-tweaked generic C version should be as well...
then offer registered versions that do what the current registered
version does, as well as registered & tweaked versions for common
Unix variants that are created by your team and do everything the
registered version does.(in theory they would be the best of all the
tweaked versions that arise? wouldn't they? :) )
should you release your code to the world?
Netscape did... but did it help them? not that I can see so far...
the premise of letting bunches of people look over your code for
loopholes and errors and optimization etc...well...
not a bad premise... but not really a great premise either IMHO.
it robs the programmer... some code 'should' be shared with
the world, other code not... reuseable code for app generation
probably should be freely given (small toolboxes and the like)...
compilers/interpreters and end result applications probably not...
linux and mac are small markets for some things..yes...
but Unix isn't... web servers alone...whew... how many
webservers are running on BSD Apache alone?????
euphoria used as a script CGI clone ala Irv and
compileable/interpretable on all those native Unix
OS's....big market...
throw in a TCP/IP toolbox, you've got multiuser
games in a big hurry...
my final take:releaseing the code itself is not something I would do.
releaseing unoptimized generic C ports to the Unix world in .exe
format for the most common Unix variants (very little work to do
that, I think?) would be good. Selling the code itself is also not
unheard of...you need to decide if Euphoria is a labor of love or if
you need it to keep the wolf from the door...
Mike
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
