Quote: Original post by phresnel
Rant

You missed the point

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Rant

You missed the point

Quote: ChaosEngine
Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on.

Quote: Yann L
You know what's funny ? This is exactly what the open source community has tried to achieve for almost 30 years now, and miserably failed at. Without the GPL :)
[Google did in few years]

Quote: phresnel
No, it's not exactly that.[...] [FSF 24yrs, google 12yrs] [blah blub]

No offense and maybe I have a dull day, but ...

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
You missed the point

... why?

Quote: Original post by phresnel
The initial goal of free software was (and is) not to make maximum profit, but to bring, if I may say so, neighbourhood and comradeship back to computing, as it was there before commercialisation of software

Exactly how recently do you think 'commercialization of software' began? Several decades at least. In fact virtually as soon as people started doing anything useful in software, they started selling it. Databases have been expensive and commercial for a very long time (such as dBase and I'm sure many even older ones). MS-DOS was not free. Word-processors still cost money in the bad old days, as did video games.

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Original post by Fiddler

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Original post by GroZZleR
Ugliest language I've ever seen. I mean, Printf(), really?

What rant you about a classy Printf()?

printf("Die %d %s\n", "horribly", 0777);

writeln ("{0}", "depends on programming language, not printf per se");const std::string cpp0x = "C++ 0x";writeln ("more a {0} version of .net's WriteLine, but printf will be safe again, too :)", cpp0x);writeln ("oh, and it will bring back clean, concise, {1}{2}{3}- and carpal-"         "tunnel friendly format strings back, {0}{0}{0}.", "yay", "i",18,'n');

[...]

C++0x will provide the tools, variadic templates and maybe user defined literals, to craft a compile time typesafe printf with optimal folding.

We are veering off-topic, but are you suggesting that C++ 1x will modify printf so that it becomes type-safe or just that it will offer the necessary tools for the user to implement his own version? I haven't been following the proceedings very closely, but I find it extremely unlikely that the committee would ever consider such a change. One solution would be to officially deprecate printf *and* iostreams and provide a sane implementation based on boost format or something - but that would make too much sense, so I guess it's not an option...

In any case, it's very curious that a presumably modern programming language would opt to keep the arcane syntax found in printf. Conceptually, it's much cleaner to have printf accept strings only and handle the formatting implicitly or explicitly during object-to-string conversions. Not only does this separate data from presentation, it is also safer to boot (lack of the necessary object-to-string converter will result in a compile time error, it is not possible to interpret an int as a string by accident like in my example above).

I'm not averse to learning a new language but so far there's little interesting or inspiring in the design of google go. Why would you use it over Eiffel, C++ or C#, for example?

Even Go! has a more interesting concept at its core.

Quote: You know what's funny ? This is exactly what the open source community has tried to achieve for almost 30 years now, and miserably failed at. And then comes one private company and gets it done in a few years, alone. Without the GPL :) Although I do find Googles' long term business model a bit suspicious, it is such a slap in the face of the FSF/GNU people that I can't help openly laughing at it.

The Open Source "community" is an umbrella term for hobbyists, computer scientists, and working professionals who build software for a variety of personal or financial reasons. When all is said and done, technically Google can be considered part of the open source community, because it's business model depends on customer and community involvement rather than community alienation.

Quote: Original post by JDXSolutions Ltd

Quote: Original post by phresnel
The initial goal of free software was (and is) not to make maximum profit, but to bring, if I may say so, neighbourhood and comradeship back to computing, as it was there before commercialisation of software

Exactly how recently do you think 'commercialization of software' began? Several decades at least. In fact virtually as soon as people started doing anything useful in software, they started selling it. Databases have been expensive and commercial for a very long time (such as dBase and I'm sure many even older ones). MS-DOS was not free. Word-processors still cost money in the bad old days, as did video games.

Several decades?So, sometime between 1930 and 1950? Nah, more like late 70's as the point where commercialized software began. Before that, most software was either bundled with the hardware as a freebie or distributed for free via swap meets.

I'm not sure what the first commercial application was, but I the first successful non-game was VisiCalc, released in 1979.

Quote: Original post by Binomine

Quote: Original post by JDXSolutions Ltd
Exactly how recently do you think 'commercialization of software' began? Several decades at least. In fact virtually as soon as people started doing anything useful in software, they started selling it. Databases have been expensive and commercial for a very long time (such as dBase and I'm sure many even older ones). MS-DOS was not free. Word-processors still cost money in the bad old days, as did video games.

Several decades?So, sometime between 1930 and 1950? Nah, more like late 70's as the point where commercialized software began. Before that, most software was either bundled with the hardware as a freebie or distributed for free via swap meets.

I'm not sure what the first commercial application was, but I the first successful non-game was VisiCalc, released in 1979.

That's three decades ago. Hard to believe, right? [smile]

Quote: Original post by Binomine

Quote: Original post by JDXSolutions Ltd

Quote: Original post by phresnel
The initial goal of free software was (and is) not to make maximum profit, but to bring, if I may say so, neighbourhood and comradeship back to computing, as it was there before commercialisation of software

Exactly how recently do you think 'commercialization of software' began? Several decades at least. In fact virtually as soon as people started doing anything useful in software, they started selling it. Databases have been expensive and commercial for a very long time (such as dBase and I'm sure many even older ones). MS-DOS was not free. Word-processors still cost money in the bad old days, as did video games.

Several decades?So, sometime between 1930 and 1950? Nah, more like late 70's as the point where commercialized software began. Before that, most software was either bundled with the hardware as a freebie or distributed for free via swap meets.

I'm not sure what the first commercial application was, but I the first successful non-game was VisiCalc, released in 1979.

I don't think you know what 'several' means. 1979 agrees with me.

[Rant]looking at the examples it seems a mixture of Delphi and C. Is there a real need for just another text based p.l.? Why is there no real innovation in this matter. Graphical interface, etc. We need change! I don't see a big future for this but there are always people willing to use it.

Quote: Original post by Marmin
[Rant]looking at the examples it seems a mixture of Delphi and C. Is there a real need for just another text based p.l.? Why is there no real innovation in this matter. Graphical interface, etc. We need change! I don't see a big future for this but there are always people willing to use it.

A graphical interface for procedural programming?

How is that supposed to work?