On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> In article <cna0im$1v35$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Parker says...
>>
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about that. My impression is that MinGW is for getting
>>> *nix apps to run on Windows. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> Cygwin was intended for that, yes, but not MingW. It doesn't even have
>> any Posix libraries. It's a port of gcc to Windows for the development
>> of Windows applications, just as DJGPP was intended to build DOS apps.
>> Coding to one tool-chain certainly eases cross-platform development.
>> Though I don't see the benefit of a MingW backend for D, other than to
>> make OSS zealots happy.
>
> Exactly! Through-out this thread, there has been talk of 'free' D compilers. OSS
> is fine, but free (as in beer) I have a problem with..

Walter can start charging any time he wants. I'm assuming he makes his
money from the other comercial compilers he wrote that I bet you never
heard of.
Also, it's ... difficult to charge for OSS. Unless you have commercial
data, (ie, Doom has .wad's they can charge for) there is nothing that
can't be duplicated, and you only have nebulous laws to stop them.

> I personally think Walter /should/ charge for DMD v1.0, if that means that we'll
> get a better compiler for it; both because of the commercial incentive that
> provides as well as the funding it would provide (to more quickly improve the compiler).

Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial rewards
dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)

> Alot of the major work on GCC is done through commercial support
> because then the large sponsors can get their platforms/features supported and
> still use an unlimited # of 'free' licences for their developers. D doesn't
> (yet) have that luxury.

Yeah, just like two thirds of Linux was written by Intel because people buy
thier processers to run it.

> It's funny - compilers are some of the most important and complicated software
> out there, taking arguably the most skill, research, time and resources to
> produce per LOC, yet many people expect them to be free.

Expect? I know about twice as many commercial compilers than free ones.
People only WANT free compilers.

> I think a grand marketing plan would be to offer some sort of feature limited
> (e.g.: hobbled library) trial edition through one download, easily installable
> on both Windows and *nix, and then charge a nominal fee for the 'full'
> cross-platform compiler + 'free' minor version upgrades and include all of the
> tools with the paid-for download.

Cripple-ware just doesn't work. Ever.

> Assuming that DMD v1.0 will perform as well as GCC C/++, and perform as
> specified on both Linux and Windows, I would be money (way) ahead by paying
> $100.00 for a D license rather than debugging some obscure memory leak or
> segfault because I forgot to NULL a C++ pointer, or because of some obscure
> incompatibility in the D/GCC interface or MinGW/Cygwin. Heck, I'd be money ahead
> by buying several licenses rather than dealing with the vagaries of installing
> Cygwin in support of some portable application (it is very easy to burn many
> man-hours building, maintaining and supporting complicated installation
> routines, after all, not to mention the potential for hard/impossible to fix
> portability issues).
>
> - Dave

True, but there are other languages out there, and at least one free compiler
will suit thier needs. Why pay to get no more than you can get free?

PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only your
arguments.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article <opshlp14iijccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial
>rewards
>dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)

Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the dynamics involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two dynamics I've seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to do a good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.

I recall one study that seems to have kind-of led to some questionable 'conventional wisdom' on this topic - Apache vs. IIS. That study was far from conclusive and IIS has improved loads since the study I read. Plus Apache was forked from NCSA HTTPd (someone got paid 'to work' at developing that!) and is more mature (time-wise) than IIS. The Apache foundation is largely supported by people who make their money off of the related software and can therefore afford (and benefit from) improving it. Like I said, it's probably different for D (currently) so if I'm asked to buy a license to fund D related work because it offers a good return on investment, I'll gladly do so.

My job is primarily integrating OSS, commercial and proprietary software. I work with all types of licensing. Some good, some bad from all. In my experience, more bad from the OSS quarter. In fact, ~80% of the 'proprietary' above is due to complete re-writes of functionality offered via OSS because in our case we could more cheaply develop it to our own specs. than license it commercially over and over (yet the OSS software was limited/buggy and/or the licensing too limiting).

Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time + effort; time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money || grow your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software work to sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software related work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was my whole point.

There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of lack of WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that to happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to offer the compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the better.

>
>PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only your arguments.
>

I'm glad you're taking part! Obviously there is always room for donated work whether or not Walter decides to charge for the compiler. Have at it!!

Thanks,

- Dave

>-- 
>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> In article <opshlp14iijccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial
>> rewards
>> dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)
>
> Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the dynamics
> involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two dynamics I've
> seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to do a
> good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.

I meant it's fine to get paid to make software, but not to get paid
for your software. It's a bit hard to explain, but I'm sure you know
about Eric Raymond (http://www.catb.org/~esr/) (as in, cathedral and
the bazaar?)
He explains it a lot better than I can. As for the studies themselves,
well... that was probably a bad choice of words, I can't back that up.
<sheepish g>

> I recall one study that seems to have kind-of led to some questionable
> 'conventional wisdom' on this topic - Apache vs. IIS. That study was far from
> conclusive and IIS has improved loads since the study I read. Plus Apache was
> forked from NCSA HTTPd (someone got paid 'to work' at developing that!) and is
> more mature (time-wise) than IIS. The Apache foundation is largely supported by
> people who make their money off of the related software and can therefore afford
> (and benefit from) improving it. Like I said, it's probably different for D
> (currently) so if I'm asked to buy a license to fund D related work because it
> offers a good return on investment, I'll gladly do so.

Quite a lot of OSS (especially the big enterprise stuff) is developed
by people who are getting paid for it. I have nothing against that.
But Walter seems not to need to charge for DMD for his income, and I'm
not going to ask him to do so (or the opposite)

> My job is primarily integrating OSS, commercial and proprietary software. I work
> with all types of licensing. Some good, some bad from all. In my experience,
> more bad from the OSS quarter. In fact, ~80% of the 'proprietary' above is due
> to complete re-writes of functionality offered via OSS because in our case we
> could more cheaply develop it to our own specs. than license it commercially
> over and over (yet the OSS software was limited/buggy and/or the licensing too
> limiting).

Interesting... did you talk to the dev's about these issues? Is this due
to the "viral" nature of the GPL, as M$ calls it? I can't see how re-writing
software that already exists to a closed product can help you...

If you're going to sink effort into a project, don't you want it to be
rewarded with other people helping to dev and maintain it? You do the
work either way.

> Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time + effort;
> time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money || grow
> your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software work to
> sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software related
> work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was my
> whole point.

No-one wants to take the bread out of the mouths of developers... (Especially
me, I am one! Even if only recreationally :D)
Actually, all dev's need is to be paid. The money doesn't have to come from
the sale of their software. (I've heard that less than a tenth of paid dev's
get their check from what they write, but I can't back that up either. Think
device drivers, in house software, etc...)

The problem is that I don't think DMD is currently stable enough to support
itself as a commercial product, and when it is, an open AND free alternative
will do if not just as well, close enough that the increase in productivity
won't cancel the purchase cost.

> There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of lack of
> WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that to
> happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D
> compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to offer the
> compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the better.

Isn't most OSS done for fun or to fix the problem a dev has with it?
(scratching itches)

Finally, if you want to help Walter on the scarce resorce thang', you could
always donate :D.

>>
>> PS. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, I don't mean to attack you, only
>> your arguments.
>>
>
> I'm glad you're taking part! Obviously there is always room for donated work
> whether or not Walter decides to charge for the compiler. Have at it!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dave
>
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article <opshnn1gujjccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>
>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <opshlp14iijccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Dave
>>> <Dave_member@pathlink.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ignoring the fact that studies have shown over and over that finacial
>>> rewards
>>> dilute code quality (being paid for work, rather than to work)
>>
>> Any links for these studies? Seriously - I want to take a look at the
>> dynamics
>> involved (it would come in handy for work related stuff). The two
>> dynamics I've
>> seen over and over are: 1) if people enjoy doing something they tend to
>> do a
>> good job at it; 2) everyone has to eat, even to do what they enjoy.
>
>I meant it's fine to get paid to make software, but not to get paid
>for your software. It's a bit hard to explain, but I'm sure you know
>about Eric Raymond (http://www.catb.org/~esr/) (as in, cathedral and
>the bazaar?)
>He explains it a lot better than I can. As for the studies themselves,
>well... that was probably a bad choice of words, I can't back that up.
><sheepish g>

Like all studies, these are just generalizations.  But I'll admit that they are are generalizations about an industry that is relatively new and which has no requirements for product quality and which, for the most part, does not follow established engineering practices.  When were these studies done?  I imagine things have improved a bit since the end of the dot com era.

>> Basically, all I'm saying boils down to: software development = time
>> + effort;
>> time + effort = work; work = calories; calories = food; food = (money ||
>> grow
>> your own). Sooner or later people will need to get paid for software
>> work to
>> sustain on-going work. I don't begrudge anyone charging for software
>> related
>> work because after all it is WORK and takes TIME and RESOURCES. That was
>> my
>> whole point.
>
>No-one wants to take the bread out of the mouths of developers...
>(Especially me, I am one! Even if only recreationally :D)
>Actually, all dev's need is to be paid. The money doesn't have to come from
>the sale of their software. (I've heard that less than a tenth of paid
>dev's get their check from what they write, but I can't back that up either.
>Think device drivers, in house software, etc...)

Device driver writers get their income from the sale of associated hardware. And in-house developers are creating proprietary software which is usually not distributed publicly in any form.  I think most OSS is developed by people during their free time, and it can be tricky when the developer is bound by IP agreements with their day job.  Personally, I would love it if I were in a position to develop OSS full-time and have the same or better income as I have now.

>> There are many promising OSS ventures that die on the vine because of
>> lack of
>> WORK, in turn because of a lack of TIME and RESOURCES. I don't want that
>> to
>> happen to D if it means Walter charges for a good, stable, X-platform D
>> compiler. If it turns out better in the long run for Walter and D to
>> offer the
>> compiler free and fund development through ancillary means, all the
>> better.

I'm sure if Walter perceives the need he'll charge for DMD before he lets its quality slip.  And for the record, DMC is free and it's an excellent compiler :-)


Sean

In article <opshnn1gujjccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>
>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC), Dave <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <opshlp14iijccy7t@simon.homenet>, Simon Buchan says...
>>>
>
>Interesting... did you talk to the dev's about these issues? Is this due
>to the "viral" nature of the GPL, as M$ calls it? I can't see how re-writing
>software that already exists to a closed product can help you...
>

Very simply - the proprietary code does what we need it to do better or we scrap it. Mostly it's worked better. No doubt there are some very good OSS/free (as in both) packages out there. There are also some excellent OS commercial products out there. Of course some things we could never justify (or even do) a rewrite for.

>
>If you're going to sink effort into a project, don't you want it to be rewarded with other people helping to dev and maintain it? You do the work either way.
>

We (try) and do a decent study on the pros and cons and sometimes it comes out that it is just a better investment of time and resources to develop proprietary (in-house, closed source) stuff. Many of these aren't real big apps. If the owners of the company invest in developing the software for competitive advantage, then they often prefer not to release source code so they can keep that competitive advantage.

We (the company) benefit from OSS - it's not a religous or political issue, just reality for what we do.

Really, my whole screed earlier was primarily about people 'expecting' not to pay for software. Sometimes many are "penny wise and pound foolish" and all that because they will spend a ton of resources trying to get 'free' software to do what they need when they could write a check to Bill and be money way ahead.

>
>Finally, if you want to help Walter on the scarce resorce thang', you could always donate :D.
>

I've spent a little time and effort providing feedback and I plan on buying the tools when the DMD v1.0 package becomes available and will encourage the company I work for to do the same for each developer if we use it.

"Open source" sure seems to have worked well for D up until now (and most likely it couldn't have gotten much of a foothold w/o OS) but once again I want what's best for the on going development of the language and can't expect it to be free of charge forever <g>

In article <cnasel$99g$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cn9bii$q6p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> It's my understanding that Walter plans on keeping DMD free. To make money, he plans to sell books and additional tools. But I think the basic DMD compiler will always remain free. But I might not be remembering it right, so maybe we should just wait for Walter to answer.
>
>That's the plan for the foreseeable future. The DMD source is also licensable for companies that want to create their own commercial D compiler products. Those who want to make GPL use of it can do so for free.

Will DMC pickup some of the C99 features such as bool and stdint? I have only used DMC as a linker for D but I am interested in the combo of using D and C.