Re: Major change proposal

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:31:31 +0200, Günter Jantzen wrote:

> Samir Patel wrote:
>> it is good to run prothon under .net  but IMHO you will be better of
>> continuing your current task of releasing prothon 1.0.
> 
> Hello Mark,
> 
> I agree with Samir that you should release prothon 1.0 as planned.
> If you buy a new computer it is very soon an 'old' computer.
> If you write a new piece of software it starts immediately to be 'legacy'
> code.
> Anyway, sometimes you have to buy a computer and sometimes you have to
> finish a piece of software.
> 
> The community already knows that you are a wizard who creates a firework of
> rabbits, elephants and mice from nothing.
> But are you able to finish a 1.0 version?

I know I am able to finish 1.0.  I have nothing to prove to anyone.

> This 1.0  version will be based on very modern technologies. It will run on
> major operation systems and it will have a lot of features that other
> languages haven't. So bring Prothon 1.0 (pr) to the market and
> StainlessProthon (pr#) later

Having a great technology that few people are using is a waste.  I would
have a big motivation problem working on it when I know that another path
to take would be allowing many more people to be using Prothon.

The community is much more important than the technology.

> OTOH it is a good idea to look at IronPython right now. If you plan to
> release pr and pr#, it will be necessary that they have a lot in common. For
> example, every pr-module should be a valid pr#-module. So  there should be a
> way (Pyrex style) to write extensions, so that they will be compiled to C or
> C# transparent for the user

The best way to look at IronPython is to just go ahead and implement
"stainless" (good name by the way).  I can pick up the C Prothon later and
adapt it to work well with stainless.  Doing them in that order also makes
much more sense since I cannot change .NET but my C interpreter can change
to match .NET.