Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.
>>>
>>> http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652
>>
>> Bipolar folks the Americans. All of the states are either 100% for or against...
> 
> Don't forget arrogant. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks, which is why the map only shows the US ;).
> (My vote isn't on there...)

It told me I live in Bayern! (I don't).

Gregor Richards wrote:
> I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies have kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
> 
> I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark. 

Wow! I didn't know that. It's not going to stay that way for long, in fact I'd be surprised if a court case right now didn't rule that it's already become generic. For example, I have never *once* seen it written as "Open Source(TM)". And I've read dozens of GNU sites.

But more
> importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here who use F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without redistribution rights, F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it doesn't provide any escape if the original creator loses interest, spontaneously combusts, decides he hates giving away his source and closes it again, etc, etc, etc.


I had thought that open = !closed. With this release, DMD is definitely not closed source.

Your comments imply that there's actually 3 states: open, closed, and inbetween.
Which is pretty confusing. (BTW, it's not clear to me that "open source" and "Open Source" are the same).

> 
> I understand that the reason the redistribution license isn't fully Open Source is for quirkly legal reasons with Walter's license of it, and so it's not really anybody's fault. I'm not trying to put any blame anywhere for that part.
> 
> My only request is that people (or at least Walter) don't describe it using the term "Open Source". It's confusing, it's wrong, and it dilutes a perfectly meaningful term. Use "source available", "source included", "non-redistributable source provided", I don't care, just not the term with loaded additional meaning.

Fair enough.

>  - Gregor Richards
> 
> PS: Yes, I realize that there's nothing in the words "open" and "source" that suggest all the other stuff. Welcome to English.
That's why you need (TM) or (R) if you want it to keep it as a trademark.

Daniel Keep wrote:

> As for the IDE issue, I'm increasingly of the opinion that this is a
> shortcoming of IDEs.  For example, I've never seen an IDE that got
> script in HTML right.

Netbeans 6.5
Björn

Don wrote:
> 
> It told me I live in Bayern! (I don't).

It got the specific location wrong for me too (wrong province, but close).

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "dsimcha" <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:got0ff$28r4$1@digitalmars.com...
>> == Quote from grauzone (none@example.net)'s article
>>> String mixins are awful in the first place. The only thing that could
>>> save this kind of thing are AST macros.
> 
> Both Murphey's law and the law of D bitfields dictate that we're all going to end up hating AST macros when they finally show up ;)
> 
>> ????????????? String mixins are an absolute godsend.  I mean really, how much more
>> general a metaprogramming facility could you possibly ask for than the ability to
>> generate arbitrary D code at compile time?  Of course they can get ugly, so there
>> should be better ways to do things that are done frequently (regular templates
>> accomplish this), but last I checked, bit fields are not an everyday
>> run-of-the-mill programming type of feature.
>>
>> As a more general comment, of course syntax and readability count for frequently
>> used features, but there's only so much pretty syntax available, and simplicity of
>> the core language is a virtue.  If certain things in D are going to have ugly
>> syntax, they may as well be niche features like bit fields.
> 
> My thought is that it's absolutely great to have string mixins, but they should never be thought of as anything more than a clumbsy substitute (athough notably less clumbsy than a preprocessor macro) for a real language feature to accomplish the same task (or possibly an AST macro). 
> 
> 
Sure, they're open to _severe_ abuse, but for the case when they are used to generate source code (eg, from a DSL), they are absolutely perfect, and not a hack at all. In that particular scenario, they are much better than AST macros could ever be.

They're a replacement for creating a text file, adding a line to your makefile in order to invoke a program to read the text file and spit out a d source file, then add another line in the makefile to compile that d file, then link it in, and try to integrate the whole thing seamlessly. They're a beautiful solution to a really ugly problem.

It's not fair to regard them simply as a hack to get around language limitations.

Don, el  8 de marzo a las 07:39 me escribiste:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
> >I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies have
> >kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
> >I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is
> >NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and
> >using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is
> >in violation of the trademark.
> 
> Wow! I didn't know that. It's not going to stay that way for long, in fact I'd be surprised if a court case right now didn't rule that it's already become generic. For example, I have never *once* seen it written as "Open Source(TM)". And I've read dozens of GNU sites.

I don't know if Open Source is a TM, but I'm sure you can't find information about it in GNU sites =)

GNU advocates Free Software instead of Open Source. It's very similar but not the same, Free Sowftware is more "viral".

> But more
> >importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here who use F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without redistribution rights, F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it doesn't provide any escape if the original creator loses interest, spontaneously combusts, decides he hates giving away his source and closes it again, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> 
> I had thought that open = !closed. With this release, DMD is definitely not closed source.

Well, I think it's closed. I just opened a window to peak inside =)

> Your comments imply that there's actually 3 states: open, closed, and inbetween.  Which is pretty confusing. (BTW, it's not clear to me that "open source" and "Open Source" are the same).

I think Open Source has a well established meaning, whether you like it or not (as well as Free Software). If you use that term with another meaning you are just confusing people (and even pissing off people who try to make a stand with FLOSS). Unless you want to buy some publicity with the fuzz, it's better not to do it =)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algún día los libros desterrarán a la radio y el hombre descubrirá el
oculto poder del Amargo Serrano.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. El Bolsón, 1909.

> Sure, they're open to _severe_ abuse, but for the case when they are used to generate source code (eg, from a DSL), they are absolutely perfect, and not a hack at all. In that particular scenario, they are much better than AST macros could ever be.
> 
> They're a replacement for creating a text file, adding a line to your makefile in order to invoke a program to read the text file and spit out a d source file, then add another line in the makefile to compile that d file, then link it in, and try to integrate the whole thing seamlessly. They're a beautiful solution to a really ugly problem.
> 
> It's not fair to regard them simply as a hack to get around language limitations.

@Walter - please add this perfect description to the mixin page ;-)

Don wrote:
> They're a replacement for creating a text file, adding a line to your makefile in order to invoke a program to read the text file and spit out a d source file, then add another line in the makefile to compile that d file, then link it in, and try to integrate the whole thing seamlessly. They're a beautiful solution to a really ugly problem.

If you look at the dmd source, there are some sub-builds in there the only purpose of which is to spit out C source code which is then compiled into dmd.

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Don, el  8 de marzo a las 07:39 me escribiste:
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies have kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
>>> I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark. 
>> Wow! I didn't know that. It's not going to stay that way for long, in fact I'd be surprised if a court case right now didn't rule that it's already become generic. For example, I have never *once* seen it written as "Open Source(TM)". And I've read dozens of GNU sites.
> 
> I don't know if Open Source is a TM, but I'm sure you can't find
> information about it in GNU sites =)
> 
> GNU advocates Free Software instead of Open Source. It's very similar but
> not the same, Free Sowftware is more "viral".


I found it isn't trademarked, actually.

> 
>> But more
>>> importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here who use F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without redistribution rights, F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it doesn't provide any escape if the original creator loses interest, spontaneously combusts, decides he hates giving away his source and closes it again, etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> I had thought that open = !closed. With this release, DMD is definitely not closed source.
> 
> Well, I think it's closed. I just opened a window to peak inside =)
> 
>> Your comments imply that there's actually 3 states: open, closed, and
>> inbetween.  Which is pretty confusing. (BTW, it's not clear to me that
>> "open source" and "Open Source" are the same).
> 
> I think Open Source has a well established meaning, whether you like it or
> not (as well as Free Software). If you use that term with another meaning
> you are just confusing people (and even pissing off people who try to make
> a stand with FLOSS). Unless you want to buy some publicity with the fuzz,
> it's better not to do it =)
> 
Yes. But it's become apparent to me that it's a stupid term.

To quote Richard Stallman:
------
However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code,” and most people seem to think that's what it means. That is a much weaker criterion than free software, and much weaker than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. ------[etc]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I'll try to never use the term "open source" again. EVER.

Gregor Richards wrote:
> I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark.

"Open Source" is NOT trademarked.  They tried for it and didn't get it.  Instead they got "Open Source Initiative Approved License", which is just a certification label.  However, I do agree, open source has a specific meaning which requires freedom to redistribute.

-Jeff