In summary, everything I contributed is broken and badly designed, and of course you are the saver. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and I hope to never see it again.
Ron -------------------------------------------------- From: "Przemyslaw Czerpak" <dru...@acn.waw.pl> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:22 PM To: "Xharbour-Developers List" <xharbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net>; "Harbour Project Main Developer List." <harb...@harbour-project.org> Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] [Harbour] Some xhb developersgivingnocreditwhen copying work from Harbour > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Ron Pinkas wrote: >> I've learned to accept that Harbour developers reserve the rights to >> rename >> function names they borrow, to "rewrite from scratch" borrowed ideas and >> extensions, to introduce borrowed yet modified syntax, all with complete >> disregard to API or user code compatibility. Obviously the claim is that >> the reasons are always noble, well justified, and have nothing to do with >> xHarbour. > > Can you precisely define what you are talking about? > I was talking things like xbase++ multivalue macros which you started > in Harbour then continued your work on then in xHarbour and you never > finished ot so they are still broken after over 6 years of xHarbour life. > But in Harbour they are implemented in absolutely different way and they > are working. I do not agree that someone will discard my work saying that > it comes from something what never worked correctly and cannot work well > due to fatal design decision. I had to create it from scratch because > alternative was dropping completely this idea to not keep broken and > not working code. > I was talking about simplex which were and still is broken because it's > wrongly designed from the beginning what Ryszard shows before xHarbour > started. In Harbour there is no even single line from this idea and the > same will have to happen in xHarbour if someone will want to fix it. > I was talking about FOR EACH, WITH OBJECT implementation which does not > come from xHarbour at all. The Harbour version does not have even single > line from xHarbour code and the names does not comes from xHarbour too. > The only one thing which comes directly from xHarbour is : inside > WITH OBJECT what causes some serious problem to other code and PP rules > and we have to leave with them :-( > I was talking about TRY / CATCH which still does not work correctly, etc. > BTW Your idea to use ALWAYS clause inside BEGIN SEQUENCE was great for me > and I implemented it in Harbour. > In Harbour all of the above were implemented in different way which does > not cause side effects and runtime overheads. The results you can see > in speedtst.prg - Harbour which now supports more features in which > some "xHarbour extensions: works but do not work in xHarbour is also > nearly twice faster in pure PCODE evaluation then xHarbour. And I'm > talking about ST mode. In the MT mode the difference is much bigger > but the speed is the less important problem of xHarbour MT mode ... > >> As far as I know, xHarbour does not include any idea borrowed from >> Harbour, > > Not true. A lot of my code I 1-st committed to Harbour and later was > ported > to xHarbour. PP, -gc3, many modifications in compiler and HVM, RDDs. > Later a lot of my code was borrowed from Harbour but it's the fact that > Miguel does not use to inform about the source of his commits, f.e. if we > are talking about "xHarbour ideas" some basic fixes for FOR EACH / > WITH OBJECT / TRY CATCH in compiler like: > 2007-08-22 11:45 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel Marchuet > <miguelangel/at/marchuet.net> > 2007-08-22 12:12 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel Marchuet > <miguelangel/at/marchuet.net> > were committed without any information about their source. > Do you see any information that the solution is copied from Harbour? > Or: > 2007-10-31 10:00 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel Marchuet > <miguelangel/at/marchuet.net> > Do you think the the line > Synced with harbour as possible. > is enough in this case? > In this case 99% of the commit is my code copied from Harbour and there is > no > even single note about it. > And then you are saying that you do not know anything about code borrowed > from Harbour. > You also do not like to refer to the source of some of your modifications, > f.e.: > 2009-03-13 23:58 UTC-0430 Ron Pinkas <ron.pinkas/at/xharbour.com> > it's my Harbour solution: > 2006-08-19 01:10 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) > adopted to xHarbour source code and it was in few days after my message > to this list where I informed you what is wrong and that you should refer > to Harbour source code for proper solution. > Here we have yet another funny thing. In this modifications you used > extension which also comes from Harbour source code but probably where > wrongly ported and in the past you modified. Of course everything without > information from where it comes and what it does. > But at leas in your last commit you haven't copied Harbour source code as > is. > Unlike FOR EACH / WITH OBJECT etc. which are not patented xHarbour names > and such construction were added to xHarbour I'm talking about direct > coping > of source code or algorithms without even single credit note to original > authors or projects. I understand that sometime is hard to check who > exactly > committed sth so I understand that it's hard to refer original author. > But I do not understand that it's possible to copy ~250 lines of my > Changelog > entry removing my name from it. > I do not talk about your or mine imaginations or feelings but only about > the facts. > >> that was implemented in an intentionally incompatible manner. I hope that >> Harbour developers will decide to compromise their infinite need to >> improve >> on ideas borrowed from xHarbour, at least when such improvement breaks >> compatibility. I also hope that Harbour developers will understand the >> value of a unified user community, even if development efforts are not >> unified. > > It was my goal in the past to keep support for both compilers and I was > making it for really long time but in current days IMHO it's not worth > to longer invest time in xHarbour. It does not offer any interesting > functionality, it's much slower, some important things does not work at > all and it's very hard to force some deeper modifications by main door. > >> Please, let's move on to better things. > > OK. I also end this subject. > I only hope that Miguel with update his ChangeLog entries from last years. > > best regards, > Przemek > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited > royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing > server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > xHarbour-developers mailing list > xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
