"Eiffel just needs a good open source compiler"
Daniel F Moisset
2005.
"Eiffel Software to Offer Dual Licensing for EiffelStudio"
http://www.eiffel.com/general/news/2006/2006_04_05_pr.html
I guess that we will now see if that was really what Eiffel was
needing....
Eiffel Software, I have had some bad experiences with your support
dept., but thanks for this
D.
Roger Browne
> Eiffel Software, I have had some bad experiences with your support
> dept., but thanks for this
I'll second that! At least we can fix showstoppers ourselves now if
necessary. And ISE support has been much better in recent years anyway.
This is a very bold move, but I think it will pay off handsomely for
ISE. Halstenbach paid a million dollars for an earlier version of the
same technology that ISE has just released to the Eiffel open source
community.
Thanks, Bertrand!
Regards,
Roger Browne
llothar
As long as anybody who wants to use it for commerical software has
still to pay this huge prices their will be no real switch - the user
community stays as small and so do libraries etc. Most libraries are
written from developers working on other commercial projects and
releasing the libs. Something that can't be done with this model.
It would be much better if ISE reduced the prices to say 500-1000 bucks
(for a cross plattform license - this means all including the Unix
versions) instead there current price model.
For me it looks like the VE deal - a last cry for help and a last try
to get some more market shares. But i would really be surprised it this
helps. What Eiffel needs is developer time to add additional stuff and
that is something you don't get for free.
I have more hopes for the Gobo Compiler then for ISE to improve the
situation, if there is anything left that could be done. Too many
people tried to hard to kill Eiffel in the past.
Georg Bauhaus
> For me it looks like the VE deal - a last cry for help and a last try
> to get some more market shares.
Wanting market share isn't the worst premise for a business.
When MS embraces and then suffocates/presses hard (lamp, oil, etc.),
others may prefer a more inviting and more fair approach.
Prospering companies have done similar things,
e.g., https://libre2.adacore.com/
Bert Verhees
>I doubt that this will help very much.
>
>As long as anybody who wants to use it for commerical software has
>still to pay this huge prices their will be no real switch - the user
>community stays as small and so do libraries etc. Most libraries are
>written from developers working on other commercial projects and
>releasing the libs. Something that can't be done with this model.
>
>It would be much better if ISE reduced the prices to say 500-1000 bucks
>(for a cross plattform license - this means all including the Unix
>versions) instead there current price model.
>
>
I think it is a good move from eiffel.com, but it is not what I am
looking for. I make open source software as something added to my normal
business, which is paid software.
------------
I must agree, Delphi, f.e. costs about $500 for a competitive upgrade
(Professional Edition).
$ 1000.00 full price
And what do you get:
- C#, C++, Delphi in one package
- Win32 (all flavours of COM, exe, console, DLL, BPL), dotnet-assemblies
target, the dotnet assemblies, is used Winforms even run under mono, if
being careful.
A lot of extra's, five ways to connect to databases, VCL, WinForms, CLX,
a lot of third party components, free, open source and commercial.
If EiffelStudio wants to win a bigger marketshare, it must lower price
and get the profit from higher sales figures.
Higher sales figures also mean more community, which means that this
will again get more people interested
I would pay a price like you mention for a cross-platform license.
I really have a good use for Eiffel in combination with Delphi. Delphi
for the interface, and Eiffel for the engine
Eiffel should be optimized for this use, building interfaces in Eiffel
is possible, but Delphi really is much better.
I hope people from Eiffel.com are reading this and consider this.
regards
Bert Verhees
Georg Bauhaus
> If EiffelStudio wants to win a bigger marketshare, it must lower price
> and get the profit from higher sales figures.
Can't speak for ISE, don't know their sales figures. But have
you asked them whether your programming needs could suggest a
pricing/support model that is different from the regular
corporate pricing announced on the web page? (Incl. the
competitive upgrade argument).
Georg
Berend de Boer
Bert> software. ------------ I must agree, Delphi, f.e. costs
Bert> about $500 for a competitive upgrade (Professional Edition).
Bert> $ 1000.00 full price
I think you should compare Enterprise version with Enterprise
version. I'm not up-to-date with the latest Delphi, but the
Professional version missed certain features that were quite
essential for certain development scenarions.
But I agree that Delphi's Professional version has certain fatures
ISE's Enterprise version lacks. But that's certainly vice versa.
--
Regards,
Berend.
** you're welcome to the #eiffel irc channel on irc.freenode.net
Bert Verhees
>>>>>>"Bert" == Bert Verhees <bertX.verheesX@.at.rosaX.nl> writes:
>
>
> Bert> software. ------------ I must agree, Delphi, f.e. costs
> Bert> about $500 for a competitive upgrade (Professional Edition).
> Bert> $ 1000.00 full price
>
> I think you should compare Enterprise version with Enterprise
> version. I'm not up-to-date with the latest Delphi, but the
> Professional version missed certain features that were quite
> essential for certain development scenarions.
>
>
ways to connect to SQL-client/server databases, and has ECO, which is a
kind of advanced persistence layer.
ECO even is in Delphi Professional, as is too a simple graphic-object
editor.
But the real power of Delphi is not what Borland gives you but the huge
community writing all kinds of components, visual or not, example code,
discussions, knowledge. (TeamB)
A large community has many advantages to a developer. Eiffel should
invest in getting a large community, one way of investing is lowering
the price to what an average development-IDE costs.
There are two average: Visual Studio, which is at the cheapest
commercial version for 130 Euro, and Delphi, price is already mentioned.
Both are even cheaper in US-dollars.
> But I agree that Delphi's Professional version has certain fatures
> ISE's Enterprise version lacks. But that's certainly vice versa.
Now lets hope, folks at Eiffel.com agree too.
Bert
llothar
I still think that there is a market for all those people disappointed
with java, but ISE is not the company that tries to target this market.
It could have been a market for Visual Eiffel but instead trying to go
into this direction, they completely stopped development and released
it under a license that is also of no value for the community. I don't
know why they still expect people to pay 700 Euro for a dead project
without any community.
Bert Verhees
I have too some strange feelings about Visual Eiffel. Having to renew a
license gives me a uncomfortable feeling.
It is not a businessmodel, they ware not making money, how can I have
any indication they will give me the half year license in half a year.
This does not motivate me to get into this environment.
And we have smarteiffel, it has a high knowledge requirement for
stepping in.
What I need, which is an indvividual need, but it is possible that
others have this need too.
I need a good IDE, like EiffelStudio
I need many targets, all kind of Win32 (COM, DLL, ActiveX,
Excecutables), dotnet-assemblies, linux-executables and libraries
Specially library-kind-targets I want most, and I want the IDE, the
knowledge and compilers to be optimised for that.
A good IDE should take me by the hand, and lead me to my favourable target.
I don't want to build interfaces in Eiffel, it really is not fit for
that (in my humble opinion)
I want to build my interfaces in Visual Studio, KDE, Kylix or Delphi,
and, as told before, write my engine for the application in Eiffel, I
need a good and easy way of interfacing between those. I want my
interfaces to be written RAD. Doing business logic in Eiffel, and
presentation logic else.
regards
Bert Verhees
llothar
business if they go.
By the way: The "get a license" link is broken for almost a week now
(maybe much longer), nowbody realized this until now and so i think
that the project is really dead as hell.
SmartEiffel is complete garbagge. Completely unuseable for serious
programming and have one of the worst software maintainers i've ever
meet. They will break compatibility with every new release and simply
reply with a "fuck you - it's our research project and we do what we
like".
For Interfaces i don't think that eiffel is so bad. Had you ever a look
at my program "www.ruby-ide.com" it's without doubt the largest
SmallEiffel programm ever written and contains about hundert dialogs. I
have my own gui builder and gui library based on the FOX toolkit. It's
not as comfortable as Delphi but if the dialogs are becoming more
complicated the difference between writing them in Delphi or Eiffel is
going away.
What is my problem with the commerical IDE's is that there is no
standard. For my development i want a nice IDE on Windows and being
able to compile the program on other platforms (FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
Solaris, Linux, MacOSX, Windows). There i only need a compiler. I'm not
willing to pay for each of the platforms an insane amount of money. So
the compiler has to be free. The worst thing in Eiffel land has ever
been the complete ignorance (IMHO based on marketing decisions) of the
companies to confirm to one language definition and one standart
runtime library.
This is strategically a _NO_ option for many companies. Depending on
one company for a serious project which defines the success of your
company is impossible: thats what you call risk management. And one of
the many reasons why everybody is moving to Java.
Also many people didn't need platform independence in the past,
especially in the days when Delphi became popular. But the times
changed. Today many projects wants this or at least wants to keep a
possibility to do this. Here we have the same problem.
And Eiffel really deserve the current state of its market share and
problems. Lisp, Ada or Smalltalk are hyperactive communities compared
to Eiffel.
In my opinion there is only one chance to resurrect Eiffel: ISE must
give away there command line compiler for free, Eric's new gobo eiffel
compiler must become compatible with the ISE one and Eiffel Studio
needs a lower priced and feature restricted standard edition (they
inofficially do this already. At least i got an offer for independent
software developer to pay only 500 US$ for the complete Eiffel Studio -
a very very good price if there weren't the other mentioned problems).
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> Yes Visual Eiffel is unusable with this license: I can't go out of
> business if they go.
> By the way: The "get a license" link is broken for almost a week now
> (maybe much longer), nowbody realized this until now and so i think
> that the project is really dead as hell.
A search on Google brings this up as Visual Eiffel Home
http://www.object-tools.com/cms/export/OTWeb/xxx/home.html
On clicking on it, it says :
"dsdsfds sadsad adad
asda
sdsadas asdasdsa asdadas"
Is this a new Eiffel construct or simply more evidence that Eiffel is dead ?
Grant Rettke
>What is my problem with the commerical IDE's is that there is no
>standard. For my development i want a nice IDE on Windows and being
>able to compile the program on other platforms (FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
>Solaris, Linux, MacOSX, Windows). There i only need a compiler. I'm not
>willing to pay for each of the platforms an insane amount of money. So
>the compiler has to be free.
The entire EiffelBase library itself is released under the IFELL
license; which is GPL incompatible. If you don't link against any
GPL'd code; then you could use the open source compiler to compile
whatever you wanted without having to purchase it.
These are all related. The whole GPL can be difficult to understand,
though. Reading the last link; does that mean that the C code that
ES generates is covered under the GPL or not? Also, if you buy a
commercial ES license but it links against GPL'd C libraries; does
that mean your program is itself GPL'd?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL
Georg Bauhaus
> A search on Google brings this up as Visual Eiffel Home
> http://www.object-tools.com/cms/export/OTWeb/xxx/home.html
>
> On clicking on it, it says :
>
> "dsdsfds sadsad adad
> asda
> sdsadas asdasdsa asdadas"
>
> Is this a new Eiffel construct or simply more evidence that Eiffel is dead ?
Is "rambam" evidence of something to be known about you?
Turning up lost web pages and connecting them to some hypostatised
vague idea might work in the stock market, or with the psycho
folks. But if you have a need to know whether some company
or some software is in state xyz, then there is a way: Just ask.
I'd rather spend some time on the technical qualities of the VE
compiler. It is a good compiler, emits good code, reports errors
very well, can consume single classes etc etc. It is available.
Oh wait. It compiles source language that has served its users very
well for two decades. Hm. Perhaps two decades of use in evidence of
near death? So C should be dead for how many years?
Of course, if interested potential Eiffel programmers just see where
the crowd rushes, and then proudly join it, there is commercial
pressure to ... do exactly what?
Georg
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> > http://www.object-tools.com/cms/export/OTWeb/xxx/home.html
> > On clicking on it, it says :
> > "dsdsfds sadsad adad
> > asda
> > sdsadas asdasdsa asdadas"
> > Is this a new Eiffel construct or simply more evidence that Eiffel is dead ?
> Turning up lost web pages and connecting them to some hypostatised
> vague idea might work
Disturbingly, this is the second page to be listed by searching for Visual Eiffel.
Georg Bauhaus
>>Turning up lost web pages and connecting them to some hypostatised
>>vague idea might work
>
>
> Disturbingly, this is the second page to be listed by searching for Visual Eiffel.
I know. And this page misses justifiable expectations
of someone searching the web (using a search engine, also justifiably).
What has a "restructured" web presentation got to do with the real
thing you expected?
Marketing. But that's all.
Sometimes, if you want to know something about a product,
and nothing promising turns up via web search, you can either give
up, or you can adjust the search strategy, or ask.
In the case of VE, you get a fully functioning compiler,
so that you can check whether it is good enough for your
programming project. You get to see the sources. Can this situation
get any better, from a technical perspective?
As an analogy, Visual Source Safe is a load of tripe IMHO,
when compared to proper VC systems. Yet they manage(!) to make
people believe it is a competitive offer. Why?
llothar
> The entire EiffelBase library itself is released under the IFELL
> license; which is GPL incompatible. If you don't link against any
> GPL'd code; then you could use the open source compiler to compile
> whatever you wanted without having to purchase it.
I remember the announcement - it's not so far ago that this was
different and they changed it at a time where it was already too late.
Also i remember that at that time no other compiler was able to compile
the source code. So it was a double worthless idea. And i doubt this
has changed until now.
Roger Browne
> The entire EiffelBase library itself is released under the IFELL
> license; which is GPL incompatible.
EiffelBase is now relicensed under the Eiffel Forum License version 2,
which is a true open source license (and also GPL compatible).
> If you don't link against any
> GPL'd code; then you could use the open source compiler to compile
> whatever you wanted without having to purchase it.
The open source version of the ISE Eiffel runtime is GPL. Therefore,
application compiled with EiffelStudio is a GPL derived work and can
only be distributed in accordance with the GPL.
Therefore you do need to purchase an EiffelStudio license if you want to
distribute proprietary applications. Alternatively, you can use
SmartEiffel or you can develop with EiffelStudio then (in the future)
compile with the Gobo Eiffel Compiler (which is entirely EFL2 licensed).
Regards,
Roger Browne
Jim Cochrane
> Grant Rettke wrote:
>
>> The entire EiffelBase library itself is released under the IFELL
>> license; which is GPL incompatible.
>
> EiffelBase is now relicensed under the Eiffel Forum License version 2,
> which is a true open source license (and also GPL compatible).
>
>> If you don't link against any
>> GPL'd code; then you could use the open source compiler to compile
>> whatever you wanted without having to purchase it.
>
> The open source version of the ISE Eiffel runtime is GPL. Therefore,
> application compiled with EiffelStudio is a GPL derived work and can
> only be distributed in accordance with the GPL.
I think Eiffel Software (ES, aka ISE) made an error in their license
choice for what they are calling the open source version of their
compiler (the release that was just announced a few days ago). As far
as I know, the GPL states that any package that uses code from all or
part of the (GPL-licensed) work must itself be released under the
GPL. However, neither the source code, nor the resulting executable,
for a program for which ES was used to compile the code into an
executable form falls into this category. I just did a quick scan of
the GPL and I don't see any sections that cover this kind of use
(relevant excerpt included below). And, as a counterexample, the gcc
compiler can be used to compile an application released under a
restrictive commercial license.
I have no complaint about ES's intent - to allow people to freely use their
compiler to develop and release open-source/free-software applications, as
well as to modify the compiler code itself and use the result, while
charging those who want to use their product to release a commercial
product; but I don't think the GPL allows such restrictions. To avoid
problems in the future, it'd probably be a good idea for them to either
find a license that allows what they want to do or, if one does not exist,
hire a good IT lawyer to write one.
>
> Therefore you do need to purchase an EiffelStudio license if you want to
> distribute proprietary applications. Alternatively, you can use
> SmartEiffel or you can develop with EiffelStudio then (in the future)
> compile with the Gobo Eiffel Compiler (which is entirely EFL2 licensed).
>
> Regards,
> Roger Browne
>
relevant GPL excerpt:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
...
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
llothar
somebody else is adding extensions to the runtime library then ISE is
not anymore the only copyright holder and can not compile its own
system against the library without the compiler itself becoming GPL.
But a copyright holder can publish a code under two licenses and do
whatever he wants.
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> What has a "restructured" web presentation got to do with the real
> thing you expected?
> Marketing. But that's all.
Wrong.
It gives off the smell of death.
Of a project that is so moribund that the developers / associates /fan
boys cannot even be bothered to maintain a decent web page.
If I drop into a restaurant and find that they are slaughtering pigs
on the carpet, I'll go elsewhere. Similarly, I do not think I would
want to waste any time on Visual Eiffel.
As for the technical excellence, go tell the dbase people that.
Roger Browne
> I think Eiffel Software (ES, aka ISE) made an error in their license
> choice
I don't think they made an error, Jim.
Consider section 2(b) of the GPL. An executable compiled by EiffelStudio
"is derived from" your Eiffel code plus ISE's Eiffel libraries plus the
C-code in ISE's runtime (e.g. the garbage collector). Because that C
code is GPL, the entire derived work may only be distributed under the
terms of the GPL.
> As a counterexample, the gcc
> compiler can be used to compile an application released under a
> restrictive commercial license.
The Gnu C libraries (glibc) are licensed under the LGPL not the GPL in
order to allow the commercial use of gcc, so it's not an analogous
situation.
Regards,
Roger Browne
Roger Browne
> I'd rather spend some time on the technical qualities of the VE
> compiler. It is a good compiler, emits good code, reports errors
> very well, can consume single classes etc etc. It is available.
I couldn't agree more about the technical merits of Visual Eiffel. It's
a really nice piece of work.
But if you're looking for a compiler to use on a new project, you don't
just consider the technical merits today - you also consider the likely
technical merits in ten years time, and a compiler that is not being
actively developed is at a huge disadvantage.
The development repositories tell the story - both ISE Eiffel and
SmartEiffel have had hundreds of times more commits over the past two
years than Visual Eiffel.
The open-sourcing of EiffelStudio isn't going to hurt SmartEiffel, but
it might, sadly, be the final nail in the coffin of Visual Eiffel.
Regards,
Roger Browne
Georg Bauhaus
> The open-sourcing of EiffelStudio isn't going to hurt SmartEiffel, but
> it might, sadly, be the final nail in the coffin of Visual Eiffel.
Or reviving VE might be a nice long-term university ECMA Eiffel
project. Maybe not at ETH Zürich, but who knows.
Georg Bauhaus
> The Gnu C libraries (glibc) are licensed under the LGPL not the GPL in
> order to allow the commercial use of gcc, so it's not an analogous
> situation.
Just a minor nitpick, commercial is perhaps not the only line
to be draw between LGPL etc, and GPL. Part of the reason is that
"serving businesses" never have a need to give their GPL-derived
work away, so they wouldn't even need the special permissions
of the LGPL.
IOW, if you develop server software, and run it in house,
then maybe you are still well-advised to make sure you have
support when you need it. But technically the GPL permits
writing software and do with it whatever you have in mind,
as long as you don't distribute binary executables only.
kin...@gmail.com
An Eiffel IDE
http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_ide.html
A CLR Backend for a FLOSS Eiffel
http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_clr_backend.html
Several other Eiffel-related projects are available here to interns and
final year and MSc students. See
http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/prog_and_spec_langs.html
Unfortunately, most of our students only know C/C++ and Java and have
little interest in learning any other languages. Additionally, I find
students notoriously bad these days at working with other peoples'
code. Thus, finding good students to work on these projects,
especially projects that have a long-term view, is quite difficult.
Joe
---
Joseph Kiniry
School of Computer Science and Informatics
UCD Dublin
http://secure.ucd.ie/
http://srg.cs.ucd.ie/
Georg Bauhaus
> You mean like these two projects that I have run here at UCD?
>
> An Eiffel IDE
> http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_ide.html
> A CLR Backend for a FLOSS Eiffel
> http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_clr_backend.html
Thanks. Yes. Maybe the following GCC based .NET compiler is of
technical interest,
http://www.martincarlisle.com/a_sharp.html
> Additionally, I find
> students notoriously bad these days at working with other peoples'
> code.
Sad. In particular when combining other peoples' code with
your own is really part of daily routine, and not always dull
work.
> Thus, finding good students to work on these projects,
> especially projects that have a long-term view, is quite difficult.
I wonder if there is a bit of a well intended marketing
opportunity. Like, "Recently, modern programming concepts like
Design by Contract have drawn considerable attention.
We will dive right into the supporting compiler technology,
using Eiffel as the primary language, which is easy to learn,
and easy to adapt to JVMs, for example.
The language is used in many well known industries, including
HP, or major financial companies."
-- Georg
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> I find students notoriously bad these days at working with other
> peoples' code. Thus, finding good students to work on these
> projects, especially projects that have a long-term view, is quite
> difficult.
There has been a world wide drop in the quality of students entering
computer science. Law and MBA programs appear to have the
beneficiaries of this shift in student preferences.
Bert Verhees
> You mean like these two projects that I have run here at UCD?
>
> An Eiffel IDE
> http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_ide.html
> A CLR Backend for a FLOSS Eiffel
> http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/eiffel_clr_backend.html
>
> Several other Eiffel-related projects are available here to interns and
> final year and MSc students. See
> http://secure.ucd.ie/documents/proposals/prog_and_spec_langs.html
>
> Unfortunately, most of our students only know C/C++ and Java and have
> little interest in learning any other languages. Additionally, I find
> students notoriously bad these days at working with other peoples'
> code. Thus, finding good students to work on these projects,
> especially projects that have a long-term view, is quite difficult.
There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
important, how it can improve their career
These are very good project-proposals.
If I did not need to gain money, and thus could choose my own projects
to work on, I would certainly consider both projects
Bert Verhees
Roger Browne
> ... Eiffel-related projects are available here to interns and
> final year and MSc students.
Does UCD Dublin offer MSc by distance learning? You might find plenty of
interest in these Eiffel projects if that's the case.
Regards,
Roger Browne
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
> important, how it can improve their career
That is begging the question.
Is Eiffel knowledge important ?
Will it improve their career ?
When good programs like Stanford, MIT and Cambridge do not bother with
teaching their comp sci students Eiffel, I wonder if you may not be
deluded.
Georg Bauhaus
> Bert Verhees <bertX.v...@rosaX.nl> writes:
>
> > There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
> > important, how it can improve their career
>
> That is begging the question.
> Is Eiffel knowledge important ?
> Will it improve their career ?
"explain ... why ... important, how ... improve career".
One possible answer is because Eiffel, simply by design,
invites you to think about assertions, state them, and prepare
for what to do when they fail.
Programs that do what they "assert" are better.
Programmers writing better programs have a competitive advantage.
> When good programs like Stanford, MIT and Cambridge do not bother with
> teaching their comp sci students Eiffel, I wonder if you may not be
> deluded.
Why?
Can you provide some data that show how employers choice of
employees is driven by languages that are often used at Stanford,
MIT, and Cambridge?
I doubt there is anything.
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> > > There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
> > > important, how it can improve their career
> >
> > That is begging the question.
> > Is Eiffel knowledge important ?
> > Will it improve their career ?
>
> "explain ... why ... important, how ... improve career".
That is a non-answer.
I suggest that students are making very rational market driven choices
when they express reluctance to learn Eiffel.
Georg Bauhaus
>>>> There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
>>>> important, how it can improve their career
>>> That is begging the question.
>>> Is Eiffel knowledge important ?
>>> Will it improve their career ?
>> "explain ... why ... important, how ... improve career".
>
> That is a non-answer.
There was no question.
> I suggest that students are making very rational market driven choices
> when they express reluctance to learn Eiffel.
As long as you can safely assume that employers
(1) only hire programmers who claim to know all about the language
that has been selected for the job ("at least 5 years of C#") and
(2) they do not imagine it possible for a programmer to learn
another language within reasonable time, and
(3) they can hire replacement programmers when another language fashion
arrives.
Bert Verhees
> ram...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>>>>> There is work to do, explain the students why Eiffel-knowledge is
>>>>> important, how it can improve their career
>>>> That is begging the question.
>>>> Is Eiffel knowledge important ?
>>>> Will it improve their career ?
>>> "explain ... why ... important, how ... improve career".
>> That is a non-answer.
>
> There was no question.
>
>> I suggest that students are making very rational market driven choices
>> when they express reluctance to learn Eiffel.
>
> As long as you can safely assume that employers
There are more kinds of employers.
An employer could judge knowledge and experience in Eiffel as an
advantage, because that person is used to some very good practices.
A person with knowledge of Eiffel could therefore be offered a job or
extra career opportunities.
SO, it can depend.
Bert
kin...@gmail.com
We do not (yet) offer MSc courses via distance learning, but it is
certainly something we should/might consider in the future, especially
for our Advanced Software Engineering MSc course.
Best,
Joe