[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-
