Eduardo Costa answers to (?):
> > Please, correct me if I am wrong: Clean is a proprietary language.
> Yes. You are right. What is worse: They do not make this point very
> clear (for instance, I could not find the price anywhere). You know, I do
> not mind if the language is proprietary or not. However, if it is proprietary,
> it should offer the services of a good proprietary system: A publisher,
> books, advertising to produce a volume of installed system large enough
> and competifive prices (a compiler should cost something around 200 dollars).
You can't find what? Oh, please,...
http://www.hilt.nl/
(this page is referenced from the main Clean page). You will find
all about the *free evaluation*, prices -- well, $495 anyhow...
the statement about free educational use,
courses, technical support, and the offer to advertize *your*
applications.
Perhaps it should be noticed that Clean arose also from within an
academic community. Rinus is not (yet?) Bill Gates..., and he works
at Nijmegen university, not at Microsoft Research. So, I disagree
with Simon Peyton Jones (...
hmmm, I am still there, I was afraid that a lightning would kill me
on the spot when I wrote these sinful words ... )
that making an industrial compiler is a matter of resources. Yes, but
not only, perhaps here it is not the main point. It seems
to be rather a question of philosophy. Both have their niches, both
are good for some people. I love Haskell (even if I want to have
it changed...), but I use Clean as well, I don't see any real sense
in sweeping it out because it is "proprietary".
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Caen, France
