Re: .il code/file questions
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point.
>
> At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot.
> I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling
> the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for
> a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways
> of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better
> decision when some people actually start to do something with
> the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better
> by that time what they can do, and what they want to do.
> If what they want to do is take full control of the source,
> add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put
> me out of business, they'll have a long wait.
>
I'm really having a tough time figuring out where the threat to your business
comes from. People can already create modified versions of the interpreter than
run at full speed by buying the source from you. So your defensive strategy is
to make sure that doing that is not useful for anything? I for one was ready to
plunk down my money for the source, the binder, & the translator, but now knowing
that I won't actually be able to use the binder or the source for any useful
purpose -- i.e. create executables / actually be able to develop software --
what's the point? This effectively reduces the "purposeful" new features of 2.5
to crash_routine() and the $ shorthand symbol. So now I wondering if I should
even bother using 2.5 at all. What we're proposing creates a demand for your
binder since it would be the only way to run .il code at full speed. This all
seems so obvious I have a hard time accepting that you even understand what we
mean.
Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents length(this
sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some other stuff like that to
cut down on my own typing. So I modify the front-end to add some new shorthand.
For instance, maybe I'd have:
s &&= x
be equivalent to: s = append(s,x).
And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this:
integer x = 4.
Just basic pre-processor type stuff.
Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because now I
can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands. So if I can't
even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting to add more complex new
features (new functions, built-in support for external libraries, etc.) is also
out of the question.
So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your binder or
translator still in order to do the binding or translating? Your .il format can
remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the problem? You keep talking
about people releasing enhanced versions of the language itself, but anyone CAN
ALREADY DO THAT by buying the source from you (and breaking the license, of
course). How is this a new or different threat?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
