Re: PicoLisp is DEAD (Was: PicoLisp and its (lack of) libraries)
Am 22.01.2012 08:42, schrieb Alexander Burger: OK, I understand. The language is not useful or usable, and the Community (I count 70 members in this list) is silent. Hi Alexander! Hm, for an April 1st joke it is too early!? Bad mood day due to ugly wet weather in upper bavaria? ;) Mailing list echo test on a sunday? :) Everyone has a low from time to time. Breaks help a lot. Had a walk with the raincoat today afternoon, what a great experience! And for Picolisp: After a long work-related hiatus, at xmas I finally found time again to work on my learn-something-and-get-back-something-useful side project. And I chose PL for tinkering, *because* it is not (over?)loaded like other lisp implementations (which can scare beginners because of their sheer size). Peter P.S.: If you really wanted to throw the towel, *please* consider putting the source on github or one of the other bigger SCM sites. But I'd like to see the project go on :) . P.P.S.: in the next few days, this email address will unsubscribe - spring cleaning/new years resolution to get rid of data leeches. The human behind the address will read on! -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
On 03.08.2010 09:31, Alexander Burger wrote: On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:16:12AM +0200, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: Agreed, but the new licence would encurage taking away as opposed to giving away. I don't think so. If somebody takes it, modifies it, or does whatever she likes, it does in no way have any influence on the existing versions. So it does not take away anything. It just does not force people to add their modifications. if a picolisp bloody beginner is allowed to say something: I personally do not even mind if someone takes some source, alters it and becomes filthy rich selling the results. But I would mind some kind of embrace and extend (like what happened to kerberos after win 2k), so that the market would later force you to support industry standards, parts of which are patented and/or expensive. Implementations can be free to alter by everyone, standards must not be free to alter by everyone. So if you want some part/aspect of picolisp to be free and open forever, put these files unter LGPL and the rest under BSD. Peter -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: solicting user stories of picolisp
On 19.07.2010 18:46, Alexander Burger wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:39:08PM +0200, Mateusz Jan Przybylski wrote: ``So this Lisp is a newfangled language, quite like Ruby, right?'' I'm deeply shocked! I'm not surprised. In 2010, people like wrapping yet another library in yet another framework. Until the solution(tm) is about 47 MB (=mega bloat) big - minimum. RAM and Disk is cheap nowadays... Programmers are admired for more LoC, not for less. Another point may be the orientation of educational entities towards certain industry standards and the vendors academical pricing. Peter P.S.: even less people have heard of Forth. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
subscribe
Hello Peter Fischer letzterfreiercoolern...@googlemail.com :-) You are now subscribed -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
