On 2/11/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uuuh, dunno dude. "Ought to have" is mighty strong language. Oughtn't > you implement it?
Yeah, I suppose so. We'll see if I get around to it. > What is your basic market motive for wanting things to "run > everywhere?" How do you personally benefit from this, aside from some Like a lot of open source developers I don't know how or if I will make money. I have a day job for that. I'd rather that my work get unlimited exposure (assuming I get anything worthwhile done :-) rather than tie it down with licensing fees or retail sales, and simultaneously have to turn a fun hobby into a stressful drudgery to meet commercial expectations. And projects that are commercially successful have to have a narrow enough scope that they can be done on time, not be too revolutionary to be saleable, etc. My day-job projects have mostly been decidedly underwhelming compared to my own dreams. (There was one exception, but that company was not commercially successful. If it had been an open-source project, at least I could keep using the cool code that I wrote there. But alas, it was not.) > kind of programmer aesthetic satisfaction that "things have been > perfected?" How will others benefit from this? The problem is, if it's > just your own whim, then nobody else is going to do the maintenance > upkeep on it. So that portability will never happen. People need a > stronger reason for it to happen than "well I'd like it to be that It has worked that way for some projects. Just some are more popular than others. The most popular open-source projects have become quite portable. _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
