[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Language to write HurdNG

From: Ivan Shmakov
Subject: Re: New Language to write HurdNG
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:17:57 +0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> arnuld uttre <arnuld.mizong@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> arnuld uttre <arnuld.mizong@gmail.com> writes:

 >> The hardware has gone beyond any imagination of virtually any XIX
 >> century's person, but the English language that we're currently
 >> using is still pretty much the same as it was over a century ago.

 >> Is that a problem?  Perhaps.  Should we switch to, say, Esperanto
 >> instead?  Perhaps, but I find that unlikely to happen.

 > Humans of this centuary have same limbs and same brain as of those
 > from an earlier century, they don't develop like machines, so the
 > comparison is like comparing pumpkin with lemon.

        That's not an argument.  We use the language to express not only
        our knowledge and our ideas about our bodies, but also to
        express our views on society, science, technology, and so on.

        If we need a different language each or every other time the
        technology makes a really big leap, then we're to abandon
        English much sooner than we're to abandon C.

        Because, in fact, C isn't that different to English — it's also
        a language we use to express our ideas, or, more specifically,
        our algorithms.

        As yet another formal language, one may consider the one of
        mathematics.  And it also changes not nearly as fast as the
        applications of mathematics (and computers are one of them)
        themselves change.


 >> Fortunately, I'm not a performance freak, so I may focus on freedom
 >> instead.  And in that respect, GCC and Clang are still unbeaten.

 > I too focus on freedom and thats why I never ever work on softwares
 > using BSD-like licenses.  I don't give away the hard work to
 > corporations.  GPL is the only license for me.

        Don't you confuse the concept of copyleft (which GPL is, but
        BSD-like aren't) with the much broader scope of free software
        (which both GPL and BSD-like are)?  Specifically, the
        non-copyleft free software licenses (like BSD) do /not/ forbid
        the incorporation of the code into non-free derivative works.

        Check, e. g., [1].

        That being said, I see little reason in trying to put, e. g.,
        simplistic ten-liners under GPL.  Also, I believe that even if
        the data structures are “the key” [2, 3], I'm likely to release
        the specification of the data schema into the public domain,
        even if it's, e. g., some SQL code, or ASN.1 description.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
[2] http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=58039
[3] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Brooks

FSF associate member #7257

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]