Re: .il code/file questions
On 19 Nov 2004, at 0:23, Andy Serpa wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com>
>
> 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?
I agree with this and with Derek,, what was the point to separating a
front/back end if we cannot make full common sense use of the source to
feed legal il code to the back end, and still bind that legal il code to the
back
end for exe and dll apps? What did you do that we aren't understanding,
Robert? You say the il code is to remain hidden behind non-dissemination
clauses, but we still cannot make it run with our own frontends (like for goto,
case, with... localinclude, etc etc) using the RDS backend that we buy,
because ... i forget why. Is this meant to put an end to projects like Bach?
Just what was your vision for 2.5, Rob??
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
