Love the idea but I think a big way to get a ton more backers will be to set better levels for additional languages.
If you think about it $100,000 for python is fairly steep. Not unreasonable, but take me for example. I develop primarily in ruby. If you add a ruby tier, I will back the project. But I think you should make add language tiers and make them a bit easier to reach.
If you do the foundation properly, the difference between adding Python and Ruby should be small. Perhaps if you set Python at $250k/275k and then make ruby and other languages an extra ~$25k you will gain the support of a HUGE ruby audience and open up other big audiences.
Here's a +1 to ruby, and to doing it at much less than $100k.
Actually, I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of resources for each Lang to work out well. The key point is semantics. As currently presented, light table is exploiting languages whose semantics can live on a js substrate
If anything, I think they're optimistically underestimating the engineering work for addin js backends for other languages (assuming that's how they plan to have es languages integrated in.) :-)
The backends can be written in any language that has support for TCP and JSON. :) Forcing people to write parsers/analyzers/etc in a language other than the host is bound for failure in the long run.
Comments
Love the idea but I think a big way to get a ton more backers will be to set better levels for additional languages.
If you think about it $100,000 for python is fairly steep. Not unreasonable, but take me for example. I develop primarily in ruby. If you add a ruby tier, I will back the project. But I think you should make add language tiers and make them a bit easier to reach.
If you do the foundation properly, the difference between adding Python and Ruby should be small. Perhaps if you set Python at $250k/275k and then make ruby and other languages an extra ~$25k you will gain the support of a HUGE ruby audience and open up other big audiences.
Here's a +1 to ruby, and to doing it at much less than $100k.
Actually, I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of resources for each Lang to work out well. The key point is semantics. As currently presented, light table is exploiting languages whose semantics can live on a js substrate
If anything, I think they're optimistically underestimating the engineering work for addin js backends for other languages (assuming that's how they plan to have es languages integrated in.) :-)
The backends can be written in any language that has support for TCP and JSON. :) Forcing people to write parsers/analyzers/etc in a language other than the host is bound for failure in the long run.
That, however, is a subject for a later post.
Ok, sounds like a sensible approach that prevents the editor from crashing! :-)
I expect that it will be easily extensible, so it may not be Chris's team that writes the Ruby support.