Hi --
nobody here is accusing you of anything. It's just that we are
not used to the words "profit" and "maximize profit" on this
mailing list.
In general I agree with you that it would be wonderful if we
could easily integrate tools across programming languages.
Sadly, I think that this is neither technically easy nor socially
desirable:
-- Each language comes with invariants and assumptions that
govern the relationship between compiler and run-time system.
Gluing compiled code isn't as simple as linking pieces of code.
-- As you say, scientists aren't paid to write code. As you may
realize, programming language designers are not paid to support
scientists. There are many kinds of users, and they all deserve
support.
One more thing you should appreciate about our situation.
A long time ago scientists used computer scientists
as their scribes. They governed the funding agencies (and still
do to a lesser extent), they didn't respect computer science as
an independent discipline ("fancy paper and pencil") and told
us what to do. Fortran I. Fortran II. Fortran III. Fortran IV. ...
... Fortran XIIIX (which uses this strange Java syntax). They got
what they asked for without listening to anyone who disagreed.
Now the chicken has flown the coop (or something like that),
and it's too late for now
Having said that, my hunch is that if you conducted the necessary
research, people would eventually appreciate what you are doing
but it would still take a while
Good luck and I am looking forward to your next technical post
-- Matthias
On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Marduk Bolaños wrote:
>> When you say "maximize the profit," whose profit are you referring to?
>
> What I mean is that software that could be useful in several contexts,
> like a plotting library, should enable the possibility of pluging it in
> to a larger software project. That way, several projects would
> benefit/profit from the effort and expertise of the authors of the
> software library.
>
>> When you say "minimize duplication of effort," whose labor costs are
>> you referring to?
>
> People/projects needing the functionality provided by the library would
> not have to implement it, thus avoiding a duplication of effort.
>
>> And if this work is so valuable to the profit-taker / cost-avoider,
>> why aren't they already investing in a solution?
>
> I do not understand why are you being so defensive/aggressive. My
> understanding is that most people in the Racket community are academics
> and so are many scientists. As is well known, most scientists are not
> paid for writing software, we do not have time to do it and most of us
> lack the training. Therefore, what we try to do is to use the tools that
> are available.
>
> I came to this forum asking for advice on integrating Racket libraries
> with free software projects, not on using them for commercial purposes.
> I hope that I can receive a better response than "Why don't you write
> your own plotting library?".
>
> Best,
> Marduk
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
