[clean-list] Re: Matrix timings

[Siegfried Gonzi]

Monique Wittebrood & Marco Kesseler schrieb:

> - Clean 2.0 is not exactly an example of a project with great progress.

I am happy with the Clean compiler 1.3.3 as it is. Surely, it would be nice to
embrace a Clean 2.0 compiler, but I would not expect that my programming gets a
boost or that I am then capable of handling more complicated task. Over the last
night (6:00 pm to 6:00 am) I sat infront of my Macintosh and programmed mad the 2
dimensional FFT in Clean (maybe next weekend it is available for interested
people). I got more struck in logical mistakes than in syntactic (language) ones.
Cut: I respect that people are eagerly waiting for new software but I do really
doubt that the programmer will experience a remarkable boost forward.

> And
> I don't know if many open source projects are stagnating.

And a many more. All blame on me for not delivering concrete links here, but I
saw it too often that projects get stopped.

> To me, it does
> not seem they do, but if they do, one has to determine whether they are
> because they are open source, or for other reasons. Some companies are in
> trouble too.

I do not absolutely critisize the open source community. Look for example Yorick
and how well it serves on different platforms and especially compared to other
commercial packages (Matlab,IDL). Okay, Munro holds a PhD from the MIT and is
physicist.

> - No programmer is truely 'average'.

I make the line here: I am a Clean programmer (but only at the very beginning of
a life long marriage with Clean; hopefully), but I am not a computer scientist
and I would highly suspect myself when I think I understand the theoretical
foundation of implementing a functional language.

>
> - You do not have to download many different Clean versions if you do not
> want to. You can stick with the one distributed by the people in Nijmegen
> if you like.

But then I do not see any reason for releasing the source code. I am more
contendet that I get always the version which all the other people also get (this
is more democracy than one might expect; especially with respect to the open
source and GNU and whatever community). But I can also understand that people
especially from the Linux front are not happy with the current situation. There
is the tendency for open source code, but you can all bash me for the following:
the open source code in the Linux community *has not* contributed to a better
Linux. Linux is a bloated and slow and complicated and awkward as every other
(commercial) user system.

>
>
> - About reading the code, I happily - and wholeheartedly - agree with the
> comments of rthappe (remember my remarks above about modifying code).

I am not sure about the situation in computer sciences and what has to be done by
researchers in the field. In science you publish papers with results and one
should also be capable of showing how he derived his statements. This is a
problem: how much of this is applicable to computer science? Is there a require
to open the source code or is it enough to show how the methods behind are
working?

> Clean
> research itself is about building comprehensible systems. The Clean
> compiler written in Clean had better be comprehensible. I would certainly
> find it interesting to see whether it is.

We are all curious.

>
> - Extending the Clean compiler is not only about fixing nasty bugs. I
> intend to publish some of my wishes on this list in due time. Most of these
> have nothing to do with bugs. None of them have to do with the GUI support.

Do not hesitate, I think they are hard wrapped and maybe even grateful of hearing
critical comments (this is a sign that sofware is beeing used by someone)..

> - In my view, dealing with GUI issues would better be solved via a better
> interface with the rest of the programming world (one of my wishes) that
> already has plenty of tools for GUI development. How do I get this
> interface if I can't get to the sources?

You may not forget that they tried to incorporate "functional style" in GUIs too.
It is then hard to have other options and later they will detect that nobody is
using their pure functional GUIs but instead are using other libraries. From your
point of view it is maybe really annoying. But you may not forget they build-up a
base on their  research. Otherwise they would be no different than the Linux
community: they do not invent they do compound. It is not bad and even under
certain circumstances  more valubale for the user, but nobody should be forced to
behave the same. And Linux as it is has not put forward computer science nor did
it contribute noticeably to inventions in computer science (algorithms,
theorems,...).

>
> - and another reason in favor of open source: big companies are not going
> to rely on software of a small company, let alone a research team if they
> do not get some sort of support guarantee.

But as long as nobody does the start nobody should expect that the situation will
change. It is as the dog wants to bite in his tail. I am not a speaker of Clean
here nor I am affiliated with their company behind, but the calculation is easy:
more professional (means: paying users) more support, more money for Clean to
employ more people behind Clean.

Regards,
S. Gonzi