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

[REBOL] Compiler for Rebol ? Re:(5)

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 24-Sep-2000 8:36

[jsc--dataheaven--de] wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> > BOTTOM LINE: As has been pointed out in the recent "40 platforms" > > thread, there's a real marketplace out there. While Carl and > > company would be within their legal/moral/whatever rights to stop > > supplying REBOL for w95/98/nt/2k (just to use a hypothetical and > > totally unlikely example ;-), I'd consider that an impractical > > decision if the goal is to get REBOL widely adopted. Similarly, > > although I applaud/appreciate the legions of excellent developers > > who contribute to the open source movement, and am a grateful > > beneficiary of their labors, I question the practicality of > > refusing to address the concerns of developers who wish to have > > some other means of distribution than pure source code -- for a > > variety of reasons. > > I think I have to explain a little more what I meant. > I did not say RT should stop supplying Win.. Platforms with their > fantastic tools!!! It is important for RT and the REBOL-Comunity > that REBOL evolves to a widely used language. > What I said was much more general than it obviously seemed. >
My reference to msxxx was only an analogy. Let me try to do better at drawing the parallel: Regardless of what I think of Regardless of what I think of a the Windows environment, there Closed-Source approach, there are many people who prefer it are many people who prefer it or who have constraints that or who have constraints that force them to use it. force them to use it. Any language that fails to Any language that fails to address their desires/needs address their desires/needs will limit its acceptance. will limit its acceptance. Regardless of my personal Regardless of my personal views on that environment, I views on that approach, I believe the language designer believe the language designer should consider the desires/ should consider the desires/ needs of the group above, or needs of the group above, or risk limiting his language's risk limiting his language's growth and acceptance. growth and acceptance. As long as his support for As long as his support for that environment doesn't that approach doesn't FORCE ME to use it when I FORCE ME to use it when I choose not to. choose not to. 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. If Carl chose to give us a way to compile, tokenize, convert-to- byte-code, or whatever, as a way to deliver executable REBOL scripts in a form that does not immediatly disclose the source code (whatever the reaons!), that wouldn't keep anyone who wished to do so from supplying source code.
> What I wanted to say is > > "Hey Guys look at your Software! Is it REALLY SOOOOO > special, sophisticated and valuable that it have to be > protected?" >
A perfectly fair question for a discussion such as this. But I don't think anyone else has to answer it to my satisfaction before being allowed to protect it. What I wanted to say to RT is "Hey guys! Is it really so important to force all developers to give out their source code that you won't provide any alternatives?"
> I hope this explaines a little bit more what I wanted to say. >
And, of course, all of the above discussion ignores other quite legitimate reasons for wanting some sort of pre-processed form of code: performance (which you mentioned in an earlier post), reduced run-time overhead (no need to parse/translate/compile, potentially fewer moving parts in the distributed product, potentially simpler set up, etc.), simpler/faster distribution ("object" is typically smaller than "source", making it faster to download/copy/install, etc.) and so on... Thanks! -jn-