Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
Stephen Zander wrote: > OpenSource. Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Well it's a dicier proposition that writing a Fortran or COBOL implementation from scratch, but it's Not Intractable. The next assertion might come as a small shock to you but Larry isn't god. Topaz worked, didn't it? > Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to > change the licensing terms of the current *implementation*, where > would Perl6 go? Or even Perl5 for that matter? We would have to continue operating under the license we have been granted, which does not contain provision for rescinsion. > -- > Stephen > > "Farcical aquatic ceremonies are no basis for a system of government!" -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 And the cow threw up seven times, and said: "Say it now and say it loud, I'm a cow and I am proud."
[OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
> "schwern" == schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: schwern> Sun doesn't give out its JDK source code freely, they schwern> have all sorts of restrictions. If I wanted to port the schwern> JDK I can do it, but I need special permission from Sun schwern> to distribute it. This Sucks. Especially considering schwern> that you could go through a whole lot of work and then schwern> have Sun deny you. Speaking as someone with feet firmly in both camps (I'm a Blackdown member and the Debian maintainer for the jdk and some of the largest perl modules in that distribution), IMNSHO the fatal assumption made by millions of people is that Java is OpenSource just because it's a *language*. It isn't. Get over that expectation and life becomes simpler. Just because there's a Fortran or a COBOL standard doesn't make it any easier to write compilers and run-time support from scratch for those languages, regardless of platform. And, no, no one will help support you in this endeavour. That's where things like Kaffe and Japhar find themselves. Perl's great blessing is also it's great curse; there's a single implementation and that *implementation* happens to be OpenSource. Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to change the licensing terms of the current *implementation*, where would Perl6 go? Or even Perl5 for that matter? -- Stephen "Farcical aquatic ceremonies are no basis for a system of government!"
Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
All, of course, imho: > Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to > change the licensing terms of the current *implementation* Well they can only do that to a copy of their own, not existing copies. While the law isn't clear on a lot of nuances related to more complex open source licenses, perl's is clear enough that it is implausible that A) a non-corrupt modern judicial system is going to interpret it in a way that allows license changes to apply retroactively to existing copies and B) they can then enforce this in a manner that truly stops a fork. (And guess which version the book authors and gurus would follow? Consider Borland's Interbase, which had a far more restrictive license, not even remotely as open as perl. Borland mucked about, so the community forked. All the gurus immediately backed the fork and the new direction was established in less than a week. Now Borland seeks to merge its fork (the original set of sources, since further developed a little) back with the community fork. This will happen, and the pragmatic strength of freedom over self-serving manipulation will have asserted itself.) > Try writing a second Perl implementation from > scratch. Indeed, Perl 6 is, afaik, a rewrite, from scratch. All you need is a community willing and able to do it. > Perl's great blessing is also it's great curse; there's a single > implementation and that *implementation* happens to be > OpenSource. If anyone concludes that a particular language with a clear spec that stands free of any given implementation is a lesser strategic risk than perl, then I think they should adopt that other language. I very much doubt they will have much success convincing those working on perl that a commitment to a spec that stands free of the current implementation would be a good use of their time, because the license is sufficiently free, and a stand alone spec that kept up with a continuously evolving and pragmatically driven thing like perl would take an inordinate amount of effort.
Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
Stephen Zander [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>Speaking as someone with feet firmly in both camps (I'm a Blackdown *>member and the Debian maintainer for the jdk and some of the largest *>perl modules in that distribution), IMNSHO the fatal assumption made *>by millions of people is that Java is OpenSource just because it's a *>*language*. It isn't. Get over that expectation and life becomes *>simpler. Well, I think a lot of people don't consider the OS v CS when choosing a technology and, honestly, it's not the point I was trying to make. I see too much griping about how anything that isn't open source sucks, etc. while all around us there are fewer and fewer choices to make. I don't care so much about licensing as I have my own personal choices that aren't shared by everyone nor do I expect them to be so or consider others who don't to be stupid. But I am very concerned that as time goes by that diversity in platforms and in software will cease to exist. George Carlin had a interesting observation that our lives are filled with meaningless choices at the grocery store, 165 breakfast cereals, over 100 different kinds of mustard, and that while we have these meaningless choices we have little diversity in important choices; 2 poltical parties, 2 or 3 major media companies, 2 home computing platforms, etc. I have this same feeling when looking at computing these days. Saying that Microsoft Sucks has not had much effect on its market share or in deterring people from using it. I wouldn't expect much more of an effect by saying Java or anything else sucks. Obviously, there needs to be a better method of making open source technologies more attractive to more people. e.
Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 01:49:45PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > Perl's great blessing is also it's great curse; there's a single > implementation and that *implementation* happens to be OpenSource. > Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Fortunately, we don't have to. :) Perl 6 should have a more fathomable design, or at least better documented. I don't think it'll ever reach the sort of standards that things like Java and C++ have. Then again, have you LOOKED at the ANSI C++ standard? ;) > Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to > change the licensing terms of the current *implementation* In that Highly Unlikely event, we can simply fork off the source code from the point where the license changed. License changes are not retroactive. The only restriction is we couldn't call it 'perl' under the AL. I don't think such a thing has ever happened to a major Open Source project, this doesn't worry me. The license squabbling between the various BSD's is similar, but they're all still Open. > where would Perl6 go? Same place its going right now, as there's no code. :) -- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
