Re: XyWrite and C (in the 21st century)

[Peter Cassidy pcassidy@xxxxxxxx]

Proposals like this are tossed up on SourceForge all the time. You have
to have code in hand, though, as no one is going to want to do a
clean-room build just to get started augmenting the program. Anyone
actually chased down the repository and ownership status of the code?

Peter

russurquhart1@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Robert Holmgren wrote:
>
>> ** Reply to message from Bill Troop  on
>> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:43:57 +0100
>
>>
>>> All successful programs of this age have had complete albeit painful
>>> codebase rewrites. Why should XyWrite be excepted?
>>
>> Why "should" it be excepted? Is there some imperative operating
>> here? It takes somebody with access to the sourcecode, who has
>> tons of time and interest, and doesn't expect much or any
>> remuneration: independently wealthy + completely idle +
>> first-class programmer + XyQuest or NB insider would be perfect.
>> Do you have somebody in mind?
>>
>> R.
>
> As i've said on other occasions, I would like to have a version of Xy
> that works natively on OS X. (Since we're saying what we want! :) )
> But let me propose an idea. I think we all have an idea of where Xy
> fits and what it should be or NOT be. Whatever that is, I think Xy is
> a category of programs like (La)Tex, vi, and emacs. These editors/text
> processors started out being developed for specific needs and
> architectures and over the years have been
> ported/enhanced/reinterpreted to meet the needs of that sect needing
> this new incarnation. However, purists can still find and use the
> original versions of these editors, as that suits their needs.
> To me, if there was an argument for having the source to XY made
> available, it would be so that it might have the same opportunities as
> well. Will anyone who does this make money? Probably not, but then the
> main people behind the LaTex, vi, and emacs didn't do it for the money
> either. Examining the source code would certainly be dauting, but if
> the Source were open you could have a LOT of people looking at it.
> (You might also have a former XyQuest/NB employee with some time on
> his hands willing to tinker on this now open source.)
>
> Robert, as always has valid and realistic points.
>
> NB Win is Xy for the windows environment and the most recent/up to
> date incarnation of Xy. If i were solely working in the windows
> environment, I would be looking at NB Win. (If i ever get an Intel
> based mac, i might still.) Anne, any plans for an OS X port? :)
>
> Also, opening the source will not affect a change today or tomorrow,
> or maybe ever. It might be impossible to find anyone willing/capable
> of working on the code to produce a new version. (I'll also add that
> you would also need to manage such a project as well. If one or more
> people begin contributing code, this becomes a management nightmare.)
>
> With that said, I think about all the people that we have listed on
> this mailing list, over the years. People who liked and used Xywrite,
> and for whatever reason, left to go to M$ or some other wordprocessor.
> (Herb Tyson comes to mind.) These people might be intrigued by the
> idea of an Open Sourced Xy, that they might be able to lend support or
> point us to some developers that could.
>
> Certainly this is a lot of if's and maybe's, but i can't see how
> opening the source would affect negatively what we already have?
>
> fwiw,
>
> Russ
>