Re: Meta-level questions

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:12:35 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:

> A question as big as this one can never be resolved by consensus unless 
> there is a clear sense of common goals. As an extreme example, someone 
> whose primary goal is to experiment with virtual machine technologies 
> will find it a waste of time to just reuse the .NET VM. On the other 
> hand, someone whose primary goal is to get many users for a cool 
> language quickly will find it easier to do so by enlisting the vast 
> hordes of .NET programmers yearning (whether they know it or not) for a 
> production quality dynamic language.
> 
> Prothon 1.0 cannot be all things to all people. I propose that Mark list 
> 5 *ranked* goals for Prothon 1.0 and another 5 ranked goals for 
> long-term Prothon. Then we'll have a framework for discussion. Otherwise 
> we will all just argue in favour of our favorite application 
> ("device-embedded Prothon" versus "Prothon for Windows programming") and 
> of course we'll never agree.
> 
>   Paul Prescod

I didn't mean to imply that this was open for voting.  I have learned from
this whole experience that my number one goal is for Prothon to have a
community and having fun with new features is secondary.  I'm sure I'll
have fun with new features in any case.

The only issue is whether there is any other option for obtaining a decent
library for Prothon.  I spent a lot of time earlier this year trying to
figure out how to get access to the CPython library with no success.  The
Parrot library doesn't exist.  I was pursuing the 1.0 release with no
library only because there was no library option to choose from.

I am sticking with my decision until/unless some other new radical input
comes along.

If you think about it, it is not too surprising that Gudio would think I am
doing the wrong thing.  I am deviating from what he did.