[Re: Open Clean Source]

[OLIVIER LEFEVRE]

Ana Maria Abrao wrote:

> Clean stands out not because it has some inovative language 
> constructs (like unique types), but because it has such a fine
> compiler. We believe that an open source Clean wouldn't help 
> very much, because the source could fall in less than competent 
> hands. 

Excuse me but this strikes me as pure paranoia. There are a dozen of
Scheme implementations, 4 or 5 or Haskell and ML and one has yet to 
hear any of the implementors complain that implementation xyz (you
know, the one from these _other_ people) is giving them and the
whole field a bad reputation. Can you bring foward such a person?

FPL did get a bad rap in the past but that was not a matter of this 
vs. that implementation, more one of historical development. Back in
the 60's, say, most (all?) FPLs were slow and, likewise, all are much 
improved now.

> As you fear, if you open the sources, Clean team may be forced 
> to give long explanations about the workings of the compiler,

Please explain how anyone could _force_ them to??? They would be no
more be forced to give lenghty tutorials on their code than they are
forced now to comment on their papers (unless they wish to, that is).

The deeper issue is whether academic work is compatible with non-
disclosure of data. This is a sticky issue in the experimental 
sciences because of the huge sums that are sometimes at stake but
even there many would argue that (perhaps after an appropriate delay,
so you can mine your own data in peace) you have an obligation to 
release them. Whether to go OS or not is a matter of debate for the
commercial sector but I, for one, strongly feel that it should go
without saying when it comes to academic work. Fears like the ones
expressed by Dr Abrao cannot IMO override such concerns because the
primary purpose of programming language research is to add to the 
body of knowledge about such languages, not to serve the particular 
needs of any user group, much less to apease unfounded fears.

Sure we have the papers but, as the saying goes, "Show me the source!"
Without it the papers are incomplete because in the end the proof is
in the pudding.

-- O.L.

PS: Lest some readers should feel I am taking too much space on this 
list :-), I want to point out that this will be my last posting on 
the topic, if only because the penultimate paragraph above is pretty 
much the core of the issue, so I couldn't elaborate any further even
I wanted to. Thanks for listening so far.


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