[Re: Open Source Clean?]

[OLIVIER LEFEVRE]

Frank Christoph writes:

>> If Clean is ever to take off commercially, imagine what a potential
>> compiler distributor would do if he found out that the source code 
>> of the compiler is public. I would scare away I think.
> 
> Who says that language implementors must create business for 
> compiler distributors? I think the tail is wagging the dog...

Very well said :) There are free compilers for nearly every
language in existence; that has not stopped a number of them
from taking off. The free compiler, especially if it comes
from the "home" of the language, can serve as a reference
implementation (think Java) and the other compilers must then
compete on quality. The problem here is that the Clean team
is itself in the commercial compiler business, via Hilt, which
leaves no-one to release a free reference implementation. But
as I said, I think their commercial interests would be better
srved by positioning themselves as a consultancy rather than 
by maintaining on iron grip on their effectively single-sourced language. My own background is in APL; no decent implementation
there is free: all APL houses effectively follow the Hilt model. 
And guess what, the volume of business they do is completely
marginal, even though it may be enough to provide a handful
of language developers with a decent income. So I'm not saying
it is not a viable business model, only that it is a rather 
sad one (you make the best language, then you keep it under a
basket) and that there are alternative business models.

As to the risk of fragmentation, that is why I mentioned Erlang.
It once was distributed in binary form only and Ericsson clearly
has a powerful incentive not to let implementations diverge.
Yet they eventually went Open Source. 

Regards to all,

-- O.L.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1