OpenEuphoria

RE: Moving on...

• Posted by Peter Willems <peter at integratedmoves.com> Aug 17, 2003
• 529 views

Ray Smith wrote:

> Just some general replies ...
> 
> Open Source doesn't mean socially inept hackers coding after midnight
> in a dark room.  As you say Open Source is being embrassed by some of
> the worlds largest companies and this is really a great advertisment
> for the Open Source philosophy.

   That was exactly what I meant. It also means that there is
   money involved. Anyone who thinks that Open Source is about
   "free software" is completely missing the point. Open Source
   is about maintainable products. But I think I don't have to
   convince you at this point as I take you see it the same way.
   In that same way I agree that Open Source could be good for
   Euphoria.
 
> I agree Open Source isn't for everybody ... the idea behind my post
> was that Euphoria (being developed the way it is) can't compete with
> other languages. The only way for Euphoria to take the next big
> step forward is to become open source.

   .... or get a lot of funding... or both.

   The fact that some great languages are Open Source does not mean
   that only Open Source languages are good. There are many non
   Open Source languages as well that are very good. Actually the
   Open Source languages are still very much in the minority. The fact
   that a few Open Source languages are so popular has more to do with
   the "free software" idea then the "maintainability" idea.

> Obviously if Euphoria's income is being used to "feed the family" so
> to speak no one could (or should) try to make RDS make it open source.

   That was my point indeed.

> If Euphoria's income isn't doing that, then I'm saying there are some
> really strong arguements to make Euphoria open source.

   But there are also arguments to keep it proprietary. There is
   a very important reason that Sun is not releasing Java into
   Open Source and I think it is for keeping a standard.

> Looking through all of the Eu contributions I'd say that few are
> useful, even less are at any level of completeness and most are
> not updated anymore as the original authors have moved on.

   As I said before, I think developers move on because of lack of
   user feedback. If nobody (seems to) use your stuff, than why
   bother.

> There are
> a few really good libs/tools/utilities ... but really ... not that
> many.

   It's a start 

Hans Peter Willems