How is that different from the alternative we have now? It is possible now to author for multiple things, and do so for free. The tools exist, so what value does having them embedded in the Prop tool bring now, that won't be there for the revision that must come with Prop II?
How would that external person make sure their changes align with the design of Prop II, so as to prevent dead end changes that then must be managed as noise for the longer term?
(and I'm on the Devils advocate side right now, because I'm interested in the business element in this, and how that plays out in this industry, compared to my own, just FYI Edit: And doing so makes your case stronger, I might add [noparse]:)[/noparse] )
Another Edit: Perhaps this might help to see why I'm asking what I am asking.
Operating ahead of the design carries risk. Either those that want to operate there carry that risk, or Parallax does. Risk equals dollars, so what is worth what?
If somebody wants to use the tools developed by the community, there is some risk in that the eventual change to come from Parallax might require some re-work to best leverage the new tools. At that time, people can pay the price to move over to the new tools, or continue on the path they are on, and carry the load for incorporating Prop II into those tools.
On the other hand, Parallax being involved right now might commit to some things that become awkward after Prop II is realized?
What makes owning that worth it for them? That's where I'm at on this.
Roy Eltham said...
And really, I don't think we need multiple preprocessor flavors.
I respectfully have to disagree. The availability of preprocessor hooks would allow the kind of experimentation that could, ultimately, produce useful new capabilities in the PropTool itself. Without that, we're left with your "I'm sure we could all agree..." part which, if the forum is any indication, is an impossible dream.
What I would like is for the PropTool to be a fertile petri dish for trying new things with the language. If Parallax wants openness and the benefits it brings, this would be an important first step.
If the PropTool supports a preprocessor, then we can put object son OBEX that work with variant tools and hardware without editing.
A standard preprocessor (like one using in most compilers) would work. This is would align with a prop ii compiler easily. The external person would obviously follow any rules Parallax would have.
I am talking about #define, #if, #ifdef, #ifndef, #else, #endif, #include, and the details that go along with that. It's a pretty common and standard thing in most compilers, and most of it is completely compatible across different compilers all over the place. Obviously, the real powerful part comes with macro expansion.
I am not talking about something that would change the language itself. As in, take one SPIN variant and preprocess it into another. You wouldn't need that to support variants in a single object though, if you had #ifdef blocks and/or macro expansion.
Yes you could "effectively" change the language via macro expansion, but that's not the same as what I think you were thinking.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out the Propeller Wiki·and contribute if you can.
I suspect also that dynamic is exactly why the code to BST is not released at this time. Added burden, no significant return = not optimal case use value for the investment. Brad? I'm very curious about how you think on that.
There are a couple of reasons I've not released the code for bst. The first is this (and I've said this, over, and over, and over again) :
As I started to write the compiler I built what I considered to be an appropriate framework. Not having any idea as to what I was doing, that very well structured framework turned out to be rather inappropriate and gradually devolved into a pile of soggy noodles. The IDE was started along the same lines, and quickly became quite complex as I had to work around various issues on various platforms.
*None* of the code is commented aside from the odd line noting what bug I fixed, where and why.
The compiler tells me I have 29,687 lines of code between the compiler and the IDE. No comments. None. Very little structure and a great deal of mess.
The toolchain to build all 4 versions is 1.5GB and takes me about 4 hours to build in two parts (compilers and widgetset libraries). As a consequence I don't update the compilers very often.
So, before I release the code I need to restructure a lot of it and clean it up. I progress that slowly as time allows, and I've finally put the whole shebang into source control so I can manage my changes a bit better and progressively make things less ugly. It's all a long process and not one I put a lot of time into as it's just not a priority for me.
To get back to your original question, yes, I want as little overhead as possible. Right now I have a tool set I can use comfortably.
I'm slowly working on new features and additions, but it's all related to what time I can actually spend. Bug fixes always get priority.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
hippy said...
Political in the sense that it attempts to push developers towards a particular social model of program development, furthers a particular ideology.
You can look at it from an IP perspective - Traditional closed source is "mine, mine, mine", no one has any access to the IP and it's protected vigorously, 'GPL' protects its IP vigorously but with a we'll share IP as long as you are willing to share yours clause ...
It's really just functional. They all are just a function of coordination and business. Some choose to force non-disclosure, because the job is supposedly finished. And some choose to force disclosure which is about the function of making use of the human skills at hand, making progress. Because the job isn't finished at all.
BTW, The bottom three of you list are all compulsory non-disclosure licensing models. Releasing an API is only done out of necessity and is removed once it's not necessary.
The GPL recognises the reality that if cheating is allowed then cheating will occur. And, if left unchecked, will ruin it for all. That's your social component. RMS also recognised the usefulness of cooperation and rests his arguments on the well proven collaborative results of university based research.
I'm not saying the GPL is best for everything. Just that it most definitely is NOT a political or even ideologically based license. Saying the GPL is ideological has clearly been a bit of political suggestion (spin) by some marketroids that realised compulsory disclosure is entirely incompatible with their preferred nice and tidy compulsory non-disclosure.
I'm not sure I agree on the non-ideological bit. And I realize this is academic, but a quick on things like "The Right To Read" by RMS, reveals some core ideology there that is not a given throughout our history. Oppressive governments all leverage education as much as they do religious dogma and economics to maintain their (unjust) power.
Right now, those same matters are playing out as very large corporations seek dominance for their ends, not ours. Some would argue that dominance brings us a lot of value. I'm not there, but totally see the case for that. Really, for me it all comes down to basic equality and trust. Without equality being a core reality, some of us are simply better, or more entitled than the rest of us, by virtue of their being. That's all a rather depressing state of affairs. Without trust, the case is made for dominance and repression being necessary things to check the evil inherent in people.
Open resonates on both of those levels, and is more than a functional, or economic thing, IMHO. And the GPL is not only about open, but insuring that once open, always open so that those that own it, really do, in fact, actually own it and can trust it. Neither of those are easily known true when something is closed, without that "right to read".
I think you just answered your own question. RMS's supposed ideology on matters like "right to read" is based on logically thinking about where we are heading. He's just making it a little easier to get there. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Hippy on GPL : "Political in the sense that it attempts to push developers towards a particular social model of program development, furthers a particular ideology"
Heater on pretty much any other licence : "Political in the sense that it attempts to push developers towards a particular social model of program development, furthers a particular ideology"
I can use some "widget" library from, say, Microsoft. I find I don't get the source. Probably can't give it to others. Probably not allowed to reverse engineer it. May or may not be encumbered with patents and license restrictions. I'm not supposed to hack it or change it. I can't discuss it's inner workings with anyone. I can't have the fun with it we have here endlessly discussing and exchanging bits of Propeller code.
I could say that that is all "socially divisive". It says "We develop, you lowly worms do not. We don't want you to. We want you to buy our stuff. Now and forever. We don't want you to learn from what we have done or share your knowledge with anyone else."
It's like the stone masons guilds of old. About as political as you can get.
The GPL is NOT. No one is struggling for power and money with that.
OK rant over[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
The license I like the most is the zlib license. It's what I consider the most free while still protecting the original software and authors. I don't think it has any political agenda, nor any significant requirements of the users.
Here's the full terms:
Copyright (c) <''year''> <''copyright holders''>
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out the Propeller Wiki·and contribute if you can.
The reason I LOVE Parallax STAMP's is because there is a sweet editor for Mac and Linux .
I HATE bare PICs because there dev system is so much more annoying and is NOT user friendly ..
I must give a shout out to BradC for starting on a usable IDE for Props . I could not tell but does it have a GUI like the Mac STAMP editor? ..
i dont hate windows but I don't see why in a modern times we don't have company's just Dev for WIn OSX and " RPM and DEB GNU/Linux"
based system from day 1 .....
I dont need a WinTel box for any thing I do in the rest of my computer life .. so I dont see why I must own a flavor of OS just to learn and build things .
Last I checked Apple had 91% market share in the greater then $1000 market ! .. and they have 14% over all ..
this is potential costumiers who are not able to easly use the Prop chip ...
most major distos of Linux can read a RPM or DEB . pre compiled ...
as for PPC on MAC I too own a TON of PPC gear but If i had to chose between a No OSX and Just x86 I would choose the latter .
this would cover %99 of new systems out there ..
/ rant
Peter KG6LSE
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Carpe Ducktum" "seize the tape!!" peterthethinker.com/tesla/Venom/Venom.html
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. —Tanenbaum, Andrew S.
LOL
Post Edited (Peter KG6LSE) : 12/14/2009 8:41:06 AM GMT
Comments
How would that external person make sure their changes align with the design of Prop II, so as to prevent dead end changes that then must be managed as noise for the longer term?
(and I'm on the Devils advocate side right now, because I'm interested in the business element in this, and how that plays out in this industry, compared to my own, just FYI Edit: And doing so makes your case stronger, I might add [noparse]:)[/noparse] )
Another Edit: Perhaps this might help to see why I'm asking what I am asking.
Operating ahead of the design carries risk. Either those that want to operate there carry that risk, or Parallax does. Risk equals dollars, so what is worth what?
If somebody wants to use the tools developed by the community, there is some risk in that the eventual change to come from Parallax might require some re-work to best leverage the new tools. At that time, people can pay the price to move over to the new tools, or continue on the path they are on, and carry the load for incorporating Prop II into those tools.
On the other hand, Parallax being involved right now might commit to some things that become awkward after Prop II is realized?
What makes owning that worth it for them? That's where I'm at on this.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/13/2009 10:37:10 PM GMT
What I would like is for the PropTool to be a fertile petri dish for trying new things with the language. If Parallax wants openness and the benefits it brings, this would be an important first step.
-Phil
A standard preprocessor (like one using in most compilers) would work. This is would align with a prop ii compiler easily. The external person would obviously follow any rules Parallax would have.
I am talking about #define, #if, #ifdef, #ifndef, #else, #endif, #include, and the details that go along with that. It's a pretty common and standard thing in most compilers, and most of it is completely compatible across different compilers all over the place. Obviously, the real powerful part comes with macro expansion.
I am not talking about something that would change the language itself. As in, take one SPIN variant and preprocess it into another. You wouldn't need that to support variants in a single object though, if you had #ifdef blocks and/or macro expansion.
Yes you could "effectively" change the language via macro expansion, but that's not the same as what I think you were thinking.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out the Propeller Wiki·and contribute if you can.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
DEBUG "The value of X is: ", DEC3, x, CR
into it's constituent FullDuplexSerial method calls, what's complicated and unproductive about that?
-Phil
There are a couple of reasons I've not released the code for bst. The first is this (and I've said this, over, and over, and over again) :
As I started to write the compiler I built what I considered to be an appropriate framework. Not having any idea as to what I was doing, that very well structured framework turned out to be rather inappropriate and gradually devolved into a pile of soggy noodles. The IDE was started along the same lines, and quickly became quite complex as I had to work around various issues on various platforms.
*None* of the code is commented aside from the odd line noting what bug I fixed, where and why.
The main ide form :
The compiler tells me I have 29,687 lines of code between the compiler and the IDE. No comments. None. Very little structure and a great deal of mess.
The toolchain to build all 4 versions is 1.5GB and takes me about 4 hours to build in two parts (compilers and widgetset libraries). As a consequence I don't update the compilers very often.
So, before I release the code I need to restructure a lot of it and clean it up. I progress that slowly as time allows, and I've finally put the whole shebang into source control so I can manage my changes a bit better and progressively make things less ugly. It's all a long process and not one I put a lot of time into as it's just not a priority for me.
To get back to your original question, yes, I want as little overhead as possible. Right now I have a tool set I can use comfortably.
I'm slowly working on new features and additions, but it's all related to what time I can actually spend. Bug fixes always get priority.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
BTW, The bottom three of you list are all compulsory non-disclosure licensing models. Releasing an API is only done out of necessity and is removed once it's not necessary.
The GPL recognises the reality that if cheating is allowed then cheating will occur. And, if left unchecked, will ruin it for all. That's your social component. RMS also recognised the usefulness of cooperation and rests his arguments on the well proven collaborative results of university based research.
I'm not saying the GPL is best for everything. Just that it most definitely is NOT a political or even ideologically based license. Saying the GPL is ideological has clearly been a bit of political suggestion (spin) by some marketroids that realised compulsory disclosure is entirely incompatible with their preferred nice and tidy compulsory non-disclosure.
Right now, those same matters are playing out as very large corporations seek dominance for their ends, not ours. Some would argue that dominance brings us a lot of value. I'm not there, but totally see the case for that. Really, for me it all comes down to basic equality and trust. Without equality being a core reality, some of us are simply better, or more entitled than the rest of us, by virtue of their being. That's all a rather depressing state of affairs. Without trust, the case is made for dominance and repression being necessary things to check the evil inherent in people.
Open resonates on both of those levels, and is more than a functional, or economic thing, IMHO. And the GPL is not only about open, but insuring that once open, always open so that those that own it, really do, in fact, actually own it and can trust it. Neither of those are easily known true when something is closed, without that "right to read".
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
I'm late for work now. [noparse]:([/noparse]
Heater on pretty much any other licence : "Political in the sense that it attempts to push developers towards a particular social model of program development, furthers a particular ideology"
I can use some "widget" library from, say, Microsoft. I find I don't get the source. Probably can't give it to others. Probably not allowed to reverse engineer it. May or may not be encumbered with patents and license restrictions. I'm not supposed to hack it or change it. I can't discuss it's inner workings with anyone. I can't have the fun with it we have here endlessly discussing and exchanging bits of Propeller code.
I could say that that is all "socially divisive". It says "We develop, you lowly worms do not. We don't want you to. We want you to buy our stuff. Now and forever. We don't want you to learn from what we have done or share your knowledge with anyone else."
It's like the stone masons guilds of old. About as political as you can get.
The GPL is NOT. No one is struggling for power and money with that.
OK rant over[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Post Edited (heater) : 12/14/2009 7:49:58 AM GMT
Here's the full terms:
Copyright (c) <''year''> <''copyright holders''>
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out the Propeller Wiki·and contribute if you can.
The reason I LOVE Parallax STAMP's is because there is a sweet editor for Mac and Linux .
I HATE bare PICs because there dev system is so much more annoying and is NOT user friendly ..
I must give a shout out to BradC for starting on a usable IDE for Props . I could not tell but does it have a GUI like the Mac STAMP editor? ..
i dont hate windows but I don't see why in a modern times we don't have company's just Dev for WIn OSX and " RPM and DEB GNU/Linux"
based system from day 1 .....
I dont need a WinTel box for any thing I do in the rest of my computer life .. so I dont see why I must own a flavor of OS just to learn and build things .
Last I checked Apple had 91% market share in the greater then $1000 market ! .. and they have 14% over all ..
this is potential costumiers who are not able to easly use the Prop chip ...
most major distos of Linux can read a RPM or DEB . pre compiled ...
as for PPC on MAC I too own a TON of PPC gear but If i had to chose between a No OSX and Just x86 I would choose the latter .
this would cover %99 of new systems out there ..
/ rant
Peter KG6LSE
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Carpe Ducktum" "seize the tape!!"
peterthethinker.com/tesla/Venom/Venom.html
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. —Tanenbaum, Andrew S.
LOL
Post Edited (Peter KG6LSE) : 12/14/2009 8:41:06 AM GMT