freedom

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

freedom

Simon Asselbergs
Hi Nicholas,

Ofcourse you are concerned about the haxe compiler/haxelib itself, that is your concern. It's perfectly reasonable you have a checklist of requirements before something gets added to those. And so you have, which is fine.

You are afraid of what will happen if haxe users would have the ability to change the syntax. But it's not of your concern to worry about the syntax of THEIR programs. If someone writes a library in ugly hard to maintain code, than you simply don't support it as one of the libs in haxelib. But I think the control you want to impose on the syntax of other peoples programs is way out of line, a bit like Apple style of Control. I need operator overloading, macro's that allow me to make syntax changes. If you keep concerning on things I consider to be my concern, and my concern only, it will become inevitable for me i feel forced to fork. I am already talking with some very capable people on this list about it, so if i can agree with those people about the need of a fork/or something beyond and the compiler design it will happen. I am not yet completely covinced for the need, because I hope you will come to the insight that you have to many concerns which should not be yours to have in the first place.

Greetings, Simon

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Lee Sylvester
  Hi Simon,

Nicolas is right to guard additions and alterations to the haXe
language. We've had a lot of suggestions and some very forcibly about
additions to the haXe language, and Nicolas has stood his ground.
Likewise, many of use have stood with him. It's not that the idea's
aren't good idea's, but that they're often not needed or would simply
move haXe to being over complicated / diluted.

On the other side of the coin, some of us have since forked haXe and
added our own features. We are currently working with Nicolas to making
those features work for everyone, not just ourselves. When those changes
are ready and work in a way that's harmonious to haXe, then they will be
implemented into the main haXe repo. This is by far the best way to do
things and I would strongly suggest that if you believe your changes are
solid and justifiable, by all means, create your own fork, make the
changes, then offer Nicolas and the list to check out those features. If
they prove to be useful, they will be included. If, however, they are
justified but do not quite fit the haXe philosophy, Nicolas, and others,
will suggest ways to making it so.  That's how we work, here. Nicolas
isn't in total control, but he is the projects key ranger to ensuring we
have a great set of tools to work with.

I hope this helps with your efforts.

Best,
Lee




On 01/10/2010 14:40, Simon Asselbergs wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
>
> Ofcourse you are concerned about the haxe compiler/haxelib itself,
> that is your concern. It's perfectly reasonable you have a checklist
> of requirements before something gets added to those. And so you have,
> which is fine.
>
> You are afraid of what will happen if haxe users would have the
> ability to change the syntax. But it's not of your concern to worry
> about the syntax of THEIR programs. If someone writes a library in
> ugly hard to maintain code, than you simply don't support it as one of
> the libs in haxelib. But I think the control you want to impose on the
> syntax of other peoples programs is way out of line, a bit like Apple
> style of Control. I need operator overloading, macro's that allow me
> to make syntax changes. If you keep concerning on things I consider to
> be my concern, and my concern only, it will become inevitable for me i
> feel forced to fork. I am already talking with some very capable
> people on this list about it, so if i can agree with those people
> about the need of a fork/or something beyond and the compiler design
> it will happen. I am not yet completely covinced for the need, because
> I hope you will come to the insight that you have to many concerns
> which should not be yours to have in the first place.
>
> Greetings, Simon


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Hi Nicholas,
 
My last post is a response to several things you said in other posts, my previous post refers to some of your posts. There are many, here is just one, I quote you :

You mean like http://haxe.org/manual/macros ?

Macros have been designed so that you cannot modify the syntax of the language, which IMHO leads to every people having its own personal language with more or less cryptic syntax and definitely bad for code sharing, reusing, and community as a whole.

Macros are a way to redefine a given block of haXe code semantics, which enable a lot of small DSL and AST manipulations using haXe syntax, but also compile-time data parsing/checking, enum generation, etc. Everything without changing the language syntax.

This is something you should the community let decide. They have a voice too. I would have no problems if the community speaks out and the majority agrees with you. You say you are happy that compiler design is not democracy, but at least don't speak in behalf of the community before you have listened to their voice too. That is the least kind of democracy I think you should allow!

I really hope you find it this a constructive discussion.

Greetings, Simon





--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
In reply to this post by Lee Sylvester
Lee,

Let me be clear: What and when Nicholas (or others as well) changes to haxe, is not so much an issue for me. If he is picky about features and code of others, not an issue for me too (at least not in this post). So I need operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax change. And let me as a programmer be responsable for how I use those, and others if they whish to share such code with me. That is freedom I am taling about.

Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish. However now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he doesn't want them to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax changes on THEIR programs, taking away their own responsibilities by philosphy. This is what I want any language to impose upon me. I don't think that's the kind of freedom I use open source software for also. Freedom is more than just a licence, or allow people to alter programs. It's also giving them responsibility and trust that such responsibility is something a community can handle itself. If haxe would have been just some personal itch, i couldn't care less. But if I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly prefer the responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source projects, then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more freedom.

Greetings, Simon

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Juan Delgado
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
"This is something you should the community let decide."

Says who? I don't want to be an arsehole, but you can't tell anybody
what to do. And as Lee has pointed out, by all means fork the project,
add your modifications and offer them back. If good enough, people
would use them. Worst case scenario, you solve your own problem.

As per my vote, I don't agree 100% with all Nicolas does, but I'm with
him on this one.

My 0.02!

J

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Simon Asselbergs
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
>
> My last post is a response to several things you said in other posts, my
> previous post refers to some of your posts. There are many, here is just
> one, I quote you :
>
>> You mean like http://haxe.org/manual/macros ?
>>
>> Macros have been designed so that you cannot modify the syntax of the
>> language, which IMHO leads to every people having its own personal language
>> with more or less cryptic syntax and definitely bad for code sharing,
>> reusing, and community as a whole.
>>
>> Macros are a way to redefine a given block of haXe code semantics, which
>> enable a lot of small DSL and AST manipulations using haXe syntax, but also
>> compile-time data parsing/checking, enum generation, etc. Everything without
>> changing the language syntax.
>
> This is something you should the community let decide. They have a voice
> too. I would have no problems if the community speaks out and the majority
> agrees with you. You say you are happy that compiler design is not
> democracy, but at least don't speak in behalf of the community before you
> have listened to their voice too. That is the least kind of democracy I
> think you should allow!
>
> I really hope you find it this a constructive discussion.
>
> Greetings, Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>



--
Juan Delgado - Zárate
http://zarate.tv
http://blog.zarate.tv

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Adrian Veith
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
 Hi Simon,

without judging the worth of all your ideas, I want  to express, that I
am 100% behind Nicolas statement that compiler design is not democracy.
I prefer a clear design and adding new features has never helped in
creating such.

Cheers,

Adrian.

On 01.10.2010 15:40, Simon Asselbergs wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
>
> Ofcourse you are concerned about the haxe compiler/haxelib itself,
> that is your concern. It's perfectly reasonable you have a checklist
> of requirements before something gets added to those. And so you have,
> which is fine.
>
> You are afraid of what will happen if haxe users would have the
> ability to change the syntax. But it's not of your concern to worry
> about the syntax of THEIR programs. If someone writes a library in
> ugly hard to maintain code, than you simply don't support it as one of
> the libs in haxelib. But I think the control you want to impose on the
> syntax of other peoples programs is way out of line, a bit like Apple
> style of Control. I need operator overloading, macro's that allow me
> to make syntax changes. If you keep concerning on things I consider to
> be my concern, and my concern only, it will become inevitable for me i
> feel forced to fork. I am already talking with some very capable
> people on this list about it, so if i can agree with those people
> about the need of a fork/or something beyond and the compiler design
> it will happen. I am not yet completely covinced for the need, because
> I hope you will come to the insight that you have to many concerns
> which should not be yours to have in the first place.
>
> Greetings, Simon

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
In reply to this post by Juan Delgado
Juan,

I have no problems to add code to haxe. And I fully agree with you here. And I don't want to force features upon anyone. I don't like where Nicholas is taking haxe too in terms of his philisophy, which doesn't let the community have their own responsibility to use any kind of feature which let them alter some syntax in their own programs and even worse also saying thats bad for code sharing and even the rest of the community. Nicholas is part of the community, but I am too. And I being a very little part of the community he doesn't speak for, so I am very clear about that. 

And second maybe a fork will not do, because this kind of philosophy will never allow changes which give me the responsibility I want. So maybe a new language with a lot of feature / design sharing of haxe but without the existing code or design philosophy comes to my mind. If Nicholas does really think I should not have the responsibility to use syntax changes inmy prgrams becuase thats bad for the community or code sharing etc. And I don't want to do such thing on my own (very impressive that Nicholas started as such) so if this happens it never is a worst case scenario, only in terms of serious extra commitment in terms of time and maintance.

Good to hear you are with him. Because that's what I want to hear. The members of the community speaking out about their own responsibilities themselves.

Simon

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Juan Delgado <[hidden email]> wrote:
"This is something you should the community let decide."

Says who? I don't want to be an arsehole, but you can't tell anybody
what to do. And as Lee has pointed out, by all means fork the project,
add your modifications and offer them back. If good enough, people
would use them. Worst case scenario, you solve your own problem.

As per my vote, I don't agree 100% with all Nicolas does, but I'm with
him on this one.

My 0.02!

J

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Simon Asselbergs
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> My last post is a response to several things you said in other posts, my
> previous post refers to some of your posts. There are many, here is just
> one, I quote you :
>
>> You mean like http://haxe.org/manual/macros ?
>>
>> Macros have been designed so that you cannot modify the syntax of the
>> language, which IMHO leads to every people having its own personal language
>> with more or less cryptic syntax and definitely bad for code sharing,
>> reusing, and community as a whole.
>>
>> Macros are a way to redefine a given block of haXe code semantics, which
>> enable a lot of small DSL and AST manipulations using haXe syntax, but also
>> compile-time data parsing/checking, enum generation, etc. Everything without
>> changing the language syntax.
>
> This is something you should the community let decide. They have a voice
> too. I would have no problems if the community speaks out and the majority
> agrees with you. You say you are happy that compiler design is not
> democracy, but at least don't speak in behalf of the community before you
> have listened to their voice too. That is the least kind of democracy I
> think you should allow!
>
> I really hope you find it this a constructive discussion.
>
> Greetings, Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>



--
Juan Delgado - Zárate
http://zarate.tv
http://blog.zarate.tv

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Heinz Hölzer-2
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Am 01.10.2010 16:19, schrieb Simon Asselbergs:
Lee,

Let me be clear: What and when Nicholas (or others as well) changes to haxe, is not so much an issue for me. If he is picky about features and code of others, not an issue for me too (at least not in this post). So I need operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax change. And let me as a programmer be responsable for how I use those, and others if they whish to share such code with me. That is freedom I am taling about.

Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish. However now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he doesn't want them to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax changes on THEIR programs, taking away their own responsibilities by philosphy. This is what I want any language to impose upon me. I don't think that's the kind of freedom I use open source software for also. Freedom is more than just a licence, or allow people to alter programs. It's also giving them responsibility and trust that such responsibility is something a community can handle itself. If haxe would have been just some personal itch, i couldn't care less. But if I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly prefer the responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source projects, then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more freedom.

Greetings, Simon

Of cource, you can change the syntax, as long as you pass a String to the Macro and create your own Lexer/Parser for it. I think this is a good solution, as long you have access to the whole macro-context and have the possibility to offer code-completion for your own syntax.

example:

var m:Matrix = MathMacro.openContext('
    var m = new Matrix(); // you can also define your own constructor like [1,2,3 | 1,2,3 | 1,2,3]
    var b = new Matrix();
    var c = m * b; // Matrix Multiplication
    return c;
');

You can try to modify the hscript parser to access your goals.

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
Hi Heinz,

My post was first a response to some of Nicholas outings about me not being able to responsibly do syntax changes in my programs (me as being part of the community he refers to). I beg to differ as you see. This philosophy, which doesnt affect the democracy behind design, but responsibiliy of how I use power features. Somehow I get the notion not everyone picks up that little difference,. Anyways the discussion about responsibility is good for the community, as it give the right direction, regardless agreeing with Nicholas or not.

However thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Because I will have a better look at the strategy you suppose. Being able to do syntax changes, I am afraid, requires more. In fact it all boils down to this discussion. So I like to see more strategies of solving, because they are interesting, however i doubt a little if it can be done if such a restricting philosophy is at place.

Again, Thanks,

Simon

2010/10/1 Heinz Hölzer <[hidden email]>
Am 01.10.2010 16:19, schrieb Simon Asselbergs:
Lee,

Let me be clear: What and when Nicholas (or others as well) changes to haxe, is not so much an issue for me. If he is picky about features and code of others, not an issue for me too (at least not in this post). So I need operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax change. And let me as a programmer be responsable for how I use those, and others if they whish to share such code with me. That is freedom I am taling about.

Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish. However now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he doesn't want them to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax changes on THEIR programs, taking away their own responsibilities by philosphy. This is what I want any language to impose upon me. I don't think that's the kind of freedom I use open source software for also. Freedom is more than just a licence, or allow people to alter programs. It's also giving them responsibility and trust that such responsibility is something a community can handle itself. If haxe would have been just some personal itch, i couldn't care less. But if I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly prefer the responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source projects, then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more freedom.

Greetings, Simon

Of cource, you can change the syntax, as long as you pass a String to the Macro and create your own Lexer/Parser for it. I think this is a good solution, as long you have access to the whole macro-context and have the possibility to offer code-completion for your own syntax.

example:

var m:Matrix = MathMacro.openContext('
    var m = new Matrix(); // you can also define your own constructor like [1,2,3 | 1,2,3 | 1,2,3]
    var b = new Matrix();
    var c = m * b; // Matrix Multiplication
    return c;
');

You can try to modify the hscript parser to access your goals.

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

clemos
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Simon,

You are funny.
Do you really expect Nicolas (no "h" in French, by the way) or anyone
to spend his time working on a feature he doesn't want, just because
the community voted for it ? This is not democracy, this is communism
:)
If you really want this feature, then go ahead, write it, and share it.
When you are there, if your patch is good, but yet doesn't get
included in the haXe compiler with no reason given, you will have
earned the right to compare Nicolas to Steve Jobs and to continue
threating him to fork haXe. But until then, you should stop saying
things like that.
You are totally free to modify the haXe compiler, to add any feature
you want to it, to totally change its syntax and make it something
else if you think it's better, and to fork it, and to try to run a
parallel project, but you are definitely not free to harass the
author, main contributor, and eventually "bdfl" of a project, and
force him to do something he doesn't agree with.
Personnally, I'm fine with the fact that Nicolas imposes his
decisions. He is also open to suggestions and ideas, but I trust his
vision because so far it brought me tons of good ideas and hours of
coding pleasure. When this ends and I think the project becomes crap,
I'll just go find another guru and programming language.

++++++++
Clément

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Simon Asselbergs
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
>
> Ofcourse you are concerned about the haxe compiler/haxelib itself, that is
> your concern. It's perfectly reasonable you have a checklist of requirements
> before something gets added to those. And so you have, which is fine.
>
> You are afraid of what will happen if haxe users would have the ability to
> change the syntax. But it's not of your concern to worry about the syntax of
> THEIR programs. If someone writes a library in ugly hard to maintain code,
> than you simply don't support it as one of the libs in haxelib. But I think
> the control you want to impose on the syntax of other peoples programs is
> way out of line, a bit like Apple style of Control. I need operator
> overloading, macro's that allow me to make syntax changes. If you keep
> concerning on things I consider to be my concern, and my concern only, it
> will become inevitable for me i feel forced to fork. I am already talking
> with some very capable people on this list about it, so if i can agree with
> those people about the need of a fork/or something beyond and the compiler
> design it will happen. I am not yet completely covinced for the need,
> because I hope you will come to the insight that you have to many concerns
> which should not be yours to have in the first place.
>
> Greetings, Simon
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Juan Delgado
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Every time you write "Nicholas", the Eiffel tower shrinks 1 cm...

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Simon Asselbergs
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Heinz,
>
> My post was first a response to some of Nicholas outings about me not being
> able to responsibly do syntax changes in my programs (me as being part of
> the community he refers to). I beg to differ as you see. This philosophy,
> which doesnt affect the democracy behind design, but responsibiliy of how I
> use power features. Somehow I get the notion not everyone picks up that
> little difference,. Anyways the discussion about responsibility is good for
> the community, as it give the right direction, regardless agreeing with
> Nicholas or not.
>
> However thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Because I will have
> a better look at the strategy you suppose. Being able to do syntax changes,
> I am afraid, requires more. In fact it all boils down to this discussion. So
> I like to see more strategies of solving, because they are interesting,
> however i doubt a little if it can be done if such a restricting philosophy
> is at place.
>
> Again, Thanks,
>
> Simon
>
> 2010/10/1 Heinz Hölzer <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Am 01.10.2010 16:19, schrieb Simon Asselbergs:
>>
>> Lee,
>>
>> Let me be clear: What and when Nicholas (or others as well) changes to
>> haxe, is not so much an issue for me. If he is picky about features and code
>> of others, not an issue for me too (at least not in this post). So I need
>> operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax change. And let me as a
>> programmer be responsable for how I use those, and others if they whish to
>> share such code with me. That is freedom I am taling about.
>>
>> Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish. However
>> now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he doesn't want them
>> to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax changes on THEIR
>> programs, taking away their own responsibilities by philosphy. This is what
>> I want any language to impose upon me. I don't think that's the kind of
>> freedom I use open source software for also. Freedom is more than just a
>> licence, or allow people to alter programs. It's also giving them
>> responsibility and trust that such responsibility is something a community
>> can handle itself. If haxe would have been just some personal itch, i
>> couldn't care less. But if I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly
>> prefer the responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source
>> projects, then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more
>> freedom.
>>
>> Greetings, Simon
>>
>> Of cource, you can change the syntax, as long as you pass a String to the
>> Macro and create your own Lexer/Parser for it. I think this is a good
>> solution, as long you have access to the whole macro-context and have the
>> possibility to offer code-completion for your own syntax.
>>
>> example:
>>
>> var m:Matrix = MathMacro.openContext('
>>     var m = new Matrix(); // you can also define your own constructor like
>> [1,2,3 | 1,2,3 | 1,2,3]
>>     var b = new Matrix();
>>     var c = m * b; // Matrix Multiplication
>>     return c;
>> ');
>>
>> You can try to modify the hscript parser to access your goals.
>>
>> --
>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>> http://haxe.org
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>



--
Juan Delgado - Zárate
http://zarate.tv
http://blog.zarate.tv

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Andy Li
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
But it's not of your concern to worry about the syntax of THEIR programs.
I believe Nicolas is only limiting the "syntax" of haXe, the language. Which I think good limitation on the language syntax can help you program in a better "style".
 
 But I think the control you want to impose on the syntax of other peoples programs is way out of line, a bit like Apple style of Control.
Nicolas is not controlling other ppl's programming style. More correctly, he is even not controlling the syntax of haXe, he can only control the "official" syntax of haXe, the one he created. He cannot control how you program, as if you cannot control him.
 
I need operator overloading, macro's that allow me to make syntax changes.
BTW operator overloading was discussed in the last community meeting, I would like to have it too, but I think we should wait until macros is completely implemented.
 
If you keep concerning on things I consider to be my concern, and my concern only, it will become inevitable for me i feel forced to fork. I am already talking with some very capable people on this list about it, so if i can agree with those people about the need of a fork/or something beyond and the compiler design it will happen.
It sounds like some kind of threatening?

best,
Andy

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
In reply to this post by clemos
Hi Clement,

You are funny.
Do you really expect Nicolas (no "h" in French, by the way)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Sorry about the H, i know many people called Nicholas, so it must be temporary lapse of confusion (I am not a native speaker, but I'll try hard to send proper emails, I hope you understand). I don't want to be disrespectful spelling names wrong. If you think me being funny, than I think either I must be not getting it, or something doesn't come across effectively. However I try to not make fun of people and be respectful and constructive, so you can at least tolerate my stupidity with that respect.

to spend his time working on a feature he doesn't want, just because
the community voted for it ? This is not democracy, this is communism
:)
and
If you really want this feature, then go ahead, write it, and share it.
When you are there, if your patch is good, but yet doesn't get
included in the haXe compiler with no reason given, you will have
earned the right to compare Nicolas to Steve Jobs and to continue
threating him to fork haXe. But until then, you should stop saying
things like that.

This is a open source community and so discussion about freedom, beyond licenses, is relevant and meant to be constructive (not only to me but also to the rest of the community) . And I made some nuances also, which means it is about the philosophy of responsibility how I use features in my code and my descicions to share some code (in the snese me being capable to decide if the code i want to share has enough quality). You can find some other post that are more specific about that too. And I repeat, I don't want to do force anything, I want consideration of how coders have their own responsibility and judgment how they write code and use features, because I believe thats good for the coders (the community) I am not discussing democracy behind the design of haXe. It has nothing to do with threating him or anyone else. There is nothing to threaten with and I don't want to threat anyone, and such thing i don't do either. I hope you understand now.

It's a comparison I made with Apple is of course always not in every aspect true, or even in lor of aspects not true. But it's a comparison in the respect  in the sense of taking away responsibilities and judgment how coders do something. And this is something Nicholas has said something about, so that's why I am referring to it.

parallel project, but you are definitely not free to harass the
author, main contributor, and eventually "bdfl" of a project, and

such thing is not the case. I might sound at best a bit alarming what I say, because that what it is to me. But it has never been intended to be harassing or anything like it, far from it in fact!!!

The philosphy I refer to is why it doesn't help to just do some fork. I because I don't want to feel forced it on that direction either. I think I have failed to be clear about my point. Which is a pity.

He is also open to suggestions and ideas, but I trust his
vision because so far it brought me tons of good ideas and hours of
coding pleasure.

I am all with you in this , there is no dispute of my side on that too!

I'll just go find another guru and programming language.

Do what you got to do. However I have to make a decision if the philosophy behind haXe will be worth the investment of my time in my codebase. And a view on the responsibility of haxe users (Nicolas view on it) makes the difference to me.

I hope I am now failing less to communicate about the essence and intention what my post was about. If not, then it's a pity. I hope you can respect at least my attempt.


Simon

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Simon Asselbergs
Hi List (&Nicholas),

Thanks for those replies. I see I somehow failed to communicate the essence and intent I had in mind. So I say for the last time in regard to all future replies: it's only about:

Quote Nicolas again (last time i promise):
Macros have been designed so that you cannot modify the syntax of the language, which IMHO leads to every people having its own personal language with more or less cryptic syntax and definitely bad for code sharing, reusing, and community as a whole.

Macros are a way to redefine a given block of haXe code semantics, which enable a lot of small DSL and AST manipulations using haXe syntax, but also compile-time data parsing/checking, enum generation, etc. Everything without changing the language syntax.

This conflicts deeply with how I think coders have their own responsibility and judgment how they write code and use features. I believe taht trust in responsible and judgmenets of those coders is their concern only!

I am not discussing democracy behind the design of haXe. I am not disrespecting Nicolas (even if I unintentionally spelled his name wrong, too make things even worse).

I hope the following post will be responses to that view and please not questioning my intent. I have failed to bring across what I wanted to say with my first post. Which I am to plmae for and I regret. I hope that I have am clear now. I will not respond anymore on the old interpretations, as I feel I am perfectly clear now.

If Nicolas wants to respond I about the actual content of this message I would be very very thankful.

Simon






--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Lee Sylvester
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
  Yes, haXe is open source, but that doesn't mean it's open to anyone to
abuse the core repo. Many people on this list use haXe for their own
"professional" projects. It earns them money. It provides them with
their livelihood. It feeds their spouse and children (and various
non-human family counterparts). We respect Nicolas' decisions with
regard to language features and when he doesn't approve, we reason with
him til we find something that works for everybody. This works full
stop. It means the language stays consistent and the project grows in a
decent and steady manor.

Now, with regards to democracy, your idea's haven't been put to the
vote. You've simply made demands and thrown a hissy fit when you didn't
get the response you wanted. We respect your idea's, and I even like
some of them. The "self" support is a good one and useful. What doesn't
get much support around here, though, is a pushy attitude and quite rude
comments to Nicolas whom, without him, haXe wouldn't exist at all.

As I've said, you're welcome to fork your own compiler....

Lee




On 01/10/2010 15:19, Simon Asselbergs wrote:

> Lee,
>
> Let me be clear: What and when Nicholas (or others as well) changes to
> haxe, is not so much an issue for me. If he is picky about features
> and code of others, not an issue for me too (at least not in this
> post). So I need operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax
> change. And let me as a programmer be responsable for how I use those,
> and others if they whish to share such code with me. That is freedom I
> am taling about.
>
> Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish.
> However now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he
> doesn't want them to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax
> changes on THEIR programs, taking away their own responsibilities by
> philosphy. This is what I want any language to impose upon me. I don't
> think that's the kind of freedom I use open source software for also.
> Freedom is more than just a licence, or allow people to alter
> programs. It's also giving them responsibility and trust that such
> responsibility is something a community can handle itself. If haxe
> would have been just some personal itch, i couldn't care less. But if
> I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly prefer the
> responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source projects,
> then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more
> freedom.
>
> Greetings, Simon


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Nathan
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Simon,

Are you honestly not getting the point here? you're acting like a spoilt
child demanding that Nicolas cater for your every whim - to be specific:

Simon Asselbergs wrote:
> So I need operator overloading, and macros which allow syntax change.

So if you need it, go and implement it, in haxe, in any language - this
is the point, you need it why should anybody else, Nicolas included, do
it for you?

> And let me as a programmer be responsable for how I use those, and others if they whish to
> share such code with me. That is freedom I am taling about.

As above, you are *not* talking about freedom here, and if you are it's
one hell of a weird freedom which means other people have to do what you
demand. If you want to have the freedom to code in any style you choose,
and for it work, then I suggest you implement it, and since this is the
freedom you're talking about, I'm sure you'll be passing it on to the
open source community.

> Ofcourse if they was no macro, then my wish was still just a wish. However
> now there are macro's and Nicholas has clear intentions he doesn't want them
> to give the haxe users to use macro's to do syntax changes on THEIR
> programs, taking away their own responsibilities by philosphy. This is what
> I want any language to impose upon me. I don't think that's the kind of
> freedom I use open source software for also. Freedom is more than just a

Ahh, then since this is the open source way, I'm sure you'll have no
problem in showing me the open source language which lets you use
whatever syntax you desire :) And when you do I guess I'll be asking why
you don't simply use that.

It is a very minor offering of course, so much so that I'm very
surprised more languages don't just let you code however you want. In
fact, do remind me why we have programming languages? why don't we just
code however we want and expect it to work? After all it is our code and
all these nasty language making people not letting us do syntax changes
on our own code is definitely out of order!

> licence, or allow people to alter programs. It's also giving them
> responsibility and trust that such responsibility is something a community

Are you aware of what you're asking for here? You are asking for NC to
provide you with a compiler that can compile any syntax in to something
usable - either that or you're asking him to provide you with a way to
use haxe as a compiler for any custom code you choose, also writing part
of the compilation proces in haxe itself.

Weirdly, NC has done this already - just wrap your code up as a string
then use a macro to turn it in to "haxe" which will then run it through
the real compiler. You can do this already for anything and in any
language you choose - what you can't do is get a compiler to recognise a
made up syntax on the fly just because you want to use it.

> can handle itself. If haxe would have been just some personal itch, i
> couldn't care less. But if I want to invest my time in it, and i strongly
> prefer the responsibilites of the community and freedom of open source
> projects, then it really does create only an itch with a strong path to more
> freedom.

There is a strong community here, and we do have freedom, haxe is open
source and we are free to fork / patch and propose as with any other
community, obviously (as with *all* communities) your proposals are
taken a bit more seriously if you believe in them strongly enough to go
and implement it yourself and provide a patch, or at least to share the
work load.

If your just moaning at other people to add stuff you want though, which
*is not* needed in anyway, which is just a bit of sugar you happen to
prefer, and which would take a lot of time for these other people to
implement, then (1) don't expect to see much movement and (2) why not
consider paying for there time to do it. Showing a bug and asking for it
to be fixed is quite reasonable, pointing out an issue that.. I can't be
bothered going on about this.

Seriously, do one of the following:
(1) fork haxe, experiment with the compiler, come back with a patch
(2) go and demand that another language allows you to use any syntax you
want
(3) do it better yourself, really why not? go and make your own language
then come and show us how it's done
(4) follow the path of CoffeeScript and even haxe itself, creating a
syntax which targets haxe.

The most amazing thing is that you've managed to pull out a huge amount
of negativity from a community which is packed full of some of the
nicest and most respectable people I know - further you've managed to
get me one step away from telling you to stfu and f off, which if you
knew me would realise it's so out of character it's unreal.

Simon, discounting this email, you've had some really good advice from
some very good community minded individuals - I'm sure everybody here
would be more than happy to stop this thread in a second and quite
possibly even help you to implement what you want, as well as test and
provide feedback - this could be turned positive in no time. Decision is
yours though.

Nathan

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

clemos
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Hi Simon

About "coders have their own responsibility and judgment how they
write code and use features"
Sure they do.
But when you write things that are meant to be used by other people,
you also have to keep in mind that there is a kind of "responsability
transfer" through trust: The user somehow gives a bit, if not a big
part, of his responsability to the author. There is a kind of shared
responsability between all the people who wrote all the parts of
something, programming language designers, library writers and
programmers.
If the part you are in charge of is crappy, you will be the one to
blame for that, so you have to be free to make your own decisions, in
order to be able to assume them and be responsible. This is actual
freedom.
So in our situation, Nicolas is the author of the language, and he
takes the responsability to avoid turning haxe into a big pile of
crap, based on his opinion, the fact that so far he has done pretty
well and that his work gathered an active community of people who love
it.
On my side, I assume the responsability to choose tools that I find
good, and to write code that I find nice with them, and it's, in my
opinion, far enough.

++++++
Clément

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Simon Asselbergs
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi List (&Nicholas),
>
> Thanks for those replies. I see I somehow failed to communicate the essence
> and intent I had in mind. So I say for the last time in regard to all future
> replies: it's only about:
>
> Quote Nicolas again (last time i promise):
>>
>> Macros have been designed so that you cannot modify the syntax of the
>> language, which IMHO leads to every people having its own personal language
>> with more or less cryptic syntax and definitely bad for code sharing,
>> reusing, and community as a whole.
>>
>> Macros are a way to redefine a given block of haXe code semantics, which
>> enable a lot of small DSL and AST manipulations using haXe syntax, but also
>> compile-time data parsing/checking, enum generation, etc. Everything without
>> changing the language syntax.
>
> This conflicts deeply with how I think coders have their own responsibility
> and judgment how they write code and use features. I believe taht trust in
> responsible and judgmenets of those coders is their concern only!
>
> I am not discussing democracy behind the design of haXe. I am not
> disrespecting Nicolas (even if I unintentionally spelled his name wrong, too
> make things even worse).
>
> I hope the following post will be responses to that view and please not
> questioning my intent. I have failed to bring across what I wanted to say
> with my first post. Which I am to plmae for and I regret. I hope that I have
> am clear now. I will not respond anymore on the old interpretations, as I
> feel I am perfectly clear now.
>
> If Nicolas wants to respond I about the actual content of this message I
> would be very very thankful.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

David Bergman
In reply to this post by Nathan
On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Nathan wrote:

[snipping quite a long variant of "well, if you need a certain feature, stop bitching about it and just implement it yourself!"]

> Simon, discounting this email, you've had some really good advice from some very good community minded individuals - I'm sure everybody here would be more than happy to stop this thread in a second and quite possibly even help you to implement what you want, as well as test and provide feedback - this could be turned positive in no time. Decision is yours though.

Good thing you discounted that email, Nathan ;-)

I *do* think it is legitimate to request (is that a strong word? ok, make it "wish for") a certain feature or syntax improvement in a language, without having to implement it oneself. The question is of course how to present that request/wish.

So: yes, I think Simon went a little bit crazy here, but I don't want to be immediately pushed back to "do it yourself then" as soon as I have a feeling that a certain alteration could be positive. This community is a bit special, in having one person as such a strong focal point, and I personally do not always like the "dictatorship" that even he himself kind of confesses to (modulo software development, not politics! ugh...) But, on the other hand, I watch the slow movement of the C++ Standards Committee and that makes me cringe (as well..)

Perhaps a noble aristocracy? It actually works pretty well with Boost, I think. I can worship two or three gods.

/David
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

Lee Sylvester
  On 01/10/2010 17:17, David Bergman wrote
> Perhaps a noble aristocracy? It actually works pretty well with Boost, I think. I can worship two or three gods.

To some extent, we have this. Some of us have been pushing some features
that will be implemented into haXe, even after those feature requests
were initially turned down. There are some very strong contributors on
this list that hold sway with the course that the haXe language takes,
and in a very direct manner, too. It simply isn't always obvious.

Best,
Lee

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freedom

victor / tokiop
In reply to this post by Simon Asselbergs
Hi Simon,

Since your asking for communities' view here's small one from a newbie coder..

I think you made clear what features you would like. Now calling freedom and democracy every two lines to impose your personnal view is not the form of freedom of democracy i find best. And maybe some people suffer more than you about these subjects.

IMO an opensource tool that allows anybody to code for a "closed" platform and potentially any future platform/ecosystem evolution is quite a big progress in liberty. Furthermore when liberty for people who code to eat is limited by closed platforms and private production tools.

I'm very thankfull to Nicolas and the community for that and for the knowledge sharing and discussions having place on this list. "thanks for free (beer..?) haXe, now i may be forced to forking if you don't implement that" would not be my way of expressing it, but it's maybe just about language..  I don't feel haxe is regressing but getting more interesting features regularly.

For now opensource projects are IMO the closest human acheivements to nature's exponential creative power and generosity. In one tomato you have seeds for 80 tomato plants, etc.. Liberty here depending of your skills is in using it or not, or forking it, or coding another language.. having a person coding what you want for you is not the best form of
freedom. You can't own freedom, you must use it for it to exist, so have fun with it !

cheers,

Victor

Le 01/10/10 17:18, Simon Asselbergs a écrit :
Hi Clement,

You are funny.
Do you really expect Nicolas (no "h" in French, by the way)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Sorry about the H, i know many people called Nicholas, so it must be temporary lapse of confusion (I am not a native speaker, but I'll try hard to send proper emails, I hope you understand). I don't want to be disrespectful spelling names wrong. If you think me being funny, than I think either I must be not getting it, or something doesn't come across effectively. However I try to not make fun of people and be respectful and constructive, so you can at least tolerate my stupidity with that respect.

to spend his time working on a feature he doesn't want, just because
the community voted for it ? This is not democracy, this is communism
:)
and
If you really want this feature, then go ahead, write it, and share it.
When you are there, if your patch is good, but yet doesn't get
included in the haXe compiler with no reason given, you will have
earned the right to compare Nicolas to Steve Jobs and to continue
threating him to fork haXe. But until then, you should stop saying
things like that.

This is a open source community and so discussion about freedom, beyond licenses, is relevant and meant to be constructive (not only to me but also to the rest of the community) . And I made some nuances also, which means it is about the philosophy of responsibility how I use features in my code and my descicions to share some code (in the snese me being capable to decide if the code i want to share has enough quality). You can find some other post that are more specific about that too. And I repeat, I don't want to do force anything, I want consideration of how coders have their own responsibility and judgment how they write code and use features, because I believe thats good for the coders (the community) I am not discussing democracy behind the design of haXe. It has nothing to do with threating him or anyone else. There is nothing to threaten with and I don't want to threat anyone, and such thing i don't do either. I hope you understand now.

It's a comparison I made with Apple is of course always not in every aspect true, or even in lor of aspects not true. But it's a comparison in the respect  in the sense of taking away responsibilities and judgment how coders do something. And this is something Nicholas has said something about, so that's why I am referring to it.

parallel project, but you are definitely not free to harass the
author, main contributor, and eventually "bdfl" of a project, and

such thing is not the case. I might sound at best a bit alarming what I say, because that what it is to me. But it has never been intended to be harassing or anything like it, far from it in fact!!!

The philosphy I refer to is why it doesn't help to just do some fork. I because I don't want to feel forced it on that direction either. I think I have failed to be clear about my point. Which is a pity.

He is also open to suggestions and ideas, but I trust his
vision because so far it brought me tons of good ideas and hours of
coding pleasure.

I am all with you in this , there is no dispute of my side on that too!

I'll just go find another guru and programming language.

Do what you got to do. However I have to make a decision if the philosophy behind haXe will be worth the investment of my time in my codebase. And a view on the responsibility of haxe users (Nicolas view on it) makes the difference to me.

I hope I am now failing less to communicate about the essence and intention what my post was about. If not, then it's a pity. I hope you can respect at least my attempt.


Simon

--
 + o |‹ i o p › création graphique, web, 3d
+ o |‹ ! o b › tokiop.com › tel: 06 63 96 44 38

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
12