Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[REBOL] Compiler for Rebol ? Re:(7)

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 24-Sep-2000 12:24

[jsc--dataheaven--de] wrote:
> Right, thats my opinion too, but by using compile to hide the > source we would loose the ability to acces code at runtime of > compiled code. Coming from CommonLisp I think this would be > very bad - we would give away a really important feature! >
I don't want to belabor this point unnecessrily (I probably have!), but I do NOT agree with casting this issue as a value judgement over an option which other languages provide the developer. If you (or your company) takes the policy position that you will never buy/license any software that comes without source, that's your right! (And if that means that you therefore can't use some products because they don't come with that option... well, you had the choice, so you get the consequences.) EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THE DEVELOPERS RIGHT TO CHOOSE... If some developer creates a product for which he/she chooses not to distribute the source, that's his/her right! (And if that means that she/he loses some sales to people who require source as a precondition... well, she/he had the choice, so she/he gets the consequences.) EITHER WAY, that's what free markets are about. But to pre-empt EITHER the consumers' or developers' rights to choose how they will do business by creating a development environment (or a political environment or an economic one...) that gives all the rights of choice to one party (or by institutionalizing that party's choice so that it isn't even a choice any longer) is to prevent the market from working such things out on a case by case basis -- which I believe to be the fairest mechanism in the long run.
> > Carl's support for MS operating systems doesn't keep me from > > using any of several varieties of Unix/Linux (except Debian, but > > that's another issue!), MacOS, etc. > > I never said something against this fact. >
You didn't, and I didn't mean to imply that you had. I was using the "choice of O/S" issue (which I think we all agree is a Good Thing) to try to illustrate why I think the choice of distribution form is also a Good Thing.
> _I_ would prefer using compilation (native, bytecode or whatever) > for making the code more efficient and smaller. >
And I wholeheartedly support any steps which allow you that choice!
> But I do _not_ want to loose runtime accessibility to the code. >
And that, also, is your choice. You have a perfect right to make that a condition of doing business with you. However, I don't support making that a constraint on how everybody can conduct their affairs, when they are NOT doing business with you. That's THEIR choice! -jn-