[REBOL] Re: oss revisited (briefly!)
From: david:feugey:eqrd at: 13-Feb-2004 18:15
Joel Neely a =E9crit :
> Hi, David,
> The punch-line (from my perspective) is at the end.
> David Feugey wrote:
>>There are also big issues with portability.
>>... no OSS version of the language means no fragmentation
>>of the source code.
> That simply doesn't follow. Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. etc. etc.
> have been open source from the beginning, and don't suffer from the
> oft-threatened specter of fragmentation. It simply hasn't happened.
It is... When you want to make a GUI with Perl, you have the choice
between about 10 toolkits. None of them is standard or widely used
(sorry, I call this fragmentation). It's the same for CGI, network,
image reading, etc.
Of course the core of Perl is not fragmented between different projects,
but it becomes less and less specific (or more and more generic, just
choose). I have no real fun to work with Perl now... The spirit (vision
?) is gone.
On one hand it's good (choice, open source, generic) on the other hand
it's not so good (too generic, too much choice). But sometimes it works
>>Of course that does not mean that OSS
>>implementations dont have to exist, but just that the main
>>implementation is not and that the other one cannot be called Rebol.
>>It's the same for Java with Kaffe (for example).
> No. Java is a *language*, not an implementation. It is defined by a
> specification, which makes it possible to check whether any specific
> *implementation* (Sun's JDK, Kaffe, Jikes, Blackdown, etc. etc.)
> correctly implements that spec.
OK OK, I mean, official versions of Java... Kaffe is not certified and
has many problems with some Java applications.
> This is *not* parallel to the case of R# and REBOL. REBOL is an
> implementation, without a publicly available specification. That
> means that any effort to create another implementation is based on
> inferences, guesswork, etc. etc. etc. and can't be guaranteed to
> match precisely the behavior of the implementation from RT.
Yes, you're absolutely right on this point... specifications should be
> However, if we're going to discuss the pros and cons of open source
> in an attempt to persuade him to change his mind, or to persuade
> others on the list that his choice had general benefits, we need to
> stick to the facts and look at what has actually happened in the
> arena of open-sourced languages.
Pros and cons for both... even if I prefer an OSS model.
But Rebol is pretty good... Appart from the licence (still not clear)
it's a good language, and for me it's essential.