"John S. Gage" wrote:
> Admittedly, the concepts are fairly low level: sockets, flags, and such,
> but this is code that can be maintained! This is undoubtedly open
> source at its best.
The language is irrelevant. That is just well documented code
with identifiers that make sense.
>
> I guess the problem here is predicting the evolution of open source. It
> certainly started with C (Stallman, Torvald, etc.), but will it stay
> there? Obviously, I don't know.
>
> John
For the things they wrote, it was the language that made sense.
Also as Brian pointed out, it was the language they were familiar
with using.
<CRYSTAL_BALL_MODE ON>
As the open source paradigm matures and grows other languages
are being/will be used, where they make sense. As Dr. Midgley
mentioned earlier one of the very popular application languages
was Clipper (as well as the other xBase compilers). It was easy
to use. All of the under-the-hood file manipulation stuff was a
function call away. It was built in. Because of this popularity,
there is a dedicated group of C gurus building an open source
clone (The Harbour Project). I predict there will be others.
While Stallman & Company created (at least popularized) this
paradigm we are still VERY much on the bleeding edge. Two years;
five years? The world of software development will be modeled
very differently.
<CRYSTAL_BALL_MODE OFF>
I'll send you a box of patience, John <VBG>.
-- Tim --
Open Source Health Care Alliance
Join us to help build solutions!
http://www.openhealth.com/en/healthcare.html
