Devon McCormick wrote: > I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a > complete > specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. >
There are many implementations of C, closed-source and open-source, which adhere to a variety standards more or less. I think a better example is PostScript/PDF. Adobe has published essentially complete specifications, but has a proprietary closed-source implementation. There are other commercial closed-source implementations (such as that used in HP PostScript printers and high-end RIPs). In addition there is GhostScript, which is open-source, and comes with either a GPL or a commercial licence. So in this case, the standard is set by a single company and, while the standard is published, it is not subject to alteration. There are, however, several implementations. J has a published standard (the Dictionary) with a few hints as to what should be implemented efficiently (the targets for "special code" given in the release notes). However, there is only one closed-source, but noncommercial implementation. This is similar to using only Acrobat for pdf files. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping anyone from developing another implementation of J, closed-source or otherwise. Those who are complaining should get busy. Best wishes, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
