Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: tunes.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to tunes.org.

Stories · 8

  1. Slate is Bootstrapped

    Developers · Programming · · posted by CmdrTaco · from the that-sounds-sexy-or-something dept. · 29 comments
    aster_ken writes "The latest Slate compiler is finally able to compile itself. To quote the website: "Slate is a prototype-based object-oriented programming language based on Self, CLOS, and Smalltalk. Slate syntax is intended to be as familiar as possible to a Smalltalker, rather than engaging in divergent experiments in that respect.' The beta release is currently being written in Common LISP." The latest version of Slate, 0.3, is now available for download. It was previously mentioned in this Slashdot article."

  2. Slate is Bootstrapped

    Developers · Programming · · posted by CmdrTaco · from the that-sounds-sexy-or-something dept. · 29 comments
    aster_ken writes "The latest Slate compiler is finally able to compile itself. To quote the website: "Slate is a prototype-based object-oriented programming language based on Self, CLOS, and Smalltalk. Slate syntax is intended to be as familiar as possible to a Smalltalker, rather than engaging in divergent experiments in that respect.' The beta release is currently being written in Common LISP." The latest version of Slate, 0.3, is now available for download. It was previously mentioned in this Slashdot article."

  3. The Slate Programming Language

    Developers · Programming · · posted by CowboyNeal · from the languages-named-after-microsoft-sites dept. · 244 comments
    An anonymous reader writes "I know that we have had an influx of new programming languages of late, but I feel that this one merits special attention. Theoretical computer scientists and long-time Squeak and LISP contributors Brian Rice and Lee Salzman have been rapidly developing a language called Slate. It draws on the various strengths of the Self, Smalltalk, and LISP languages. To quote from the website: 'Slate is a prototype-based object-oriented programming language based on Self, CLOS, and Smalltalk. Slate syntax is intended to be as familiar as possible to a Smalltalker, rather than engaging in divergent experiments in that respect.' The beta release is currently being written in Common LISP."

  4. The Slate Programming Language

    Developers · Programming · · posted by CowboyNeal · from the languages-named-after-microsoft-sites dept. · 244 comments
    An anonymous reader writes "I know that we have had an influx of new programming languages of late, but I feel that this one merits special attention. Theoretical computer scientists and long-time Squeak and LISP contributors Brian Rice and Lee Salzman have been rapidly developing a language called Slate. It draws on the various strengths of the Self, Smalltalk, and LISP languages. To quote from the website: 'Slate is a prototype-based object-oriented programming language based on Self, CLOS, and Smalltalk. Slate syntax is intended to be as familiar as possible to a Smalltalker, rather than engaging in divergent experiments in that respect.' The beta release is currently being written in Common LISP."

  5. Hole in GNU GPL?

    Gnu · · posted by ryuzaki0 · from the keeping-money-away-from-lawyers dept. · 426 comments
    Faré writes "It looks like a hole in the GNU GPL [may allow] people to practically turn GNU-free software into proprietary software, in as much as licenses are granted collectively rather than strictly individually. See the recent discussion thread on the cybernethics mailing-list. If collective licenses are enforceable, then there's nothing left to the GNU GPL (or any free software license); if so, I'll go to the bugroff license." Faré, who submitted this, is one of the main participants in the referenced discussion. Richard M. Stallman is another. They raise some interesting points. And the "bugroff license" is a hoot! An apology from Roblimo follows; click below to read it.

    Public Apology

    I posted this piece because I felt Faré raised some subtle but interesting ethical and legal points about the GPL that were worth discussion and clarification. I honestly did not expect to get flamed over my decision to post his submission.

    I believe that software licenses and documentation, like software itself, should be discussed as openly and publicly as possible so that bugs can be exposed and repaired. However, words (especially legal words) are far more slippery than code. With words the question, "Is this a bug?" is often far harder to answer than it is in software.

    But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.

    Please accept my humble apology. I was wrong. I will try not to make the mistake of posting anything even remotely like this on Slashdot ever again.

    - Robin

    Update: 01/18 01:37 by CT :Another Public Apology I apologize for Robin's "Humble" apology. Robin posts many good stories on Slashdot, but sometimes when he gets flamed, he takes it very personally. The reality is that every author on Slashdot gets a big load of flame every day as part of their job. They get this for mistakes, misunderstandings, or just because someone had a crappy day. Those of us who have been at it for a long time just don't care any more.

    I think Slashdot is a fine forum for arguing subtle points. I just think that when things like the GPL come into question, the hostile kneejerk reactions run rampant, and its a good idea to up your threshold a notch if you prefer a conversation to be a little more mature.

    - CmdrTaco

  6. Hole in GNU GPL?

    Gnu · · posted by ryuzaki0 · from the keeping-money-away-from-lawyers dept. · 426 comments
    Faré writes "It looks like a hole in the GNU GPL [may allow] people to practically turn GNU-free software into proprietary software, in as much as licenses are granted collectively rather than strictly individually. See the recent discussion thread on the cybernethics mailing-list. If collective licenses are enforceable, then there's nothing left to the GNU GPL (or any free software license); if so, I'll go to the bugroff license." Faré, who submitted this, is one of the main participants in the referenced discussion. Richard M. Stallman is another. They raise some interesting points. And the "bugroff license" is a hoot! An apology from Roblimo follows; click below to read it.

    Public Apology

    I posted this piece because I felt Faré raised some subtle but interesting ethical and legal points about the GPL that were worth discussion and clarification. I honestly did not expect to get flamed over my decision to post his submission.

    I believe that software licenses and documentation, like software itself, should be discussed as openly and publicly as possible so that bugs can be exposed and repaired. However, words (especially legal words) are far more slippery than code. With words the question, "Is this a bug?" is often far harder to answer than it is in software.

    But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.

    Please accept my humble apology. I was wrong. I will try not to make the mistake of posting anything even remotely like this on Slashdot ever again.

    - Robin

    Update: 01/18 01:37 by CT :Another Public Apology I apologize for Robin's "Humble" apology. Robin posts many good stories on Slashdot, but sometimes when he gets flamed, he takes it very personally. The reality is that every author on Slashdot gets a big load of flame every day as part of their job. They get this for mistakes, misunderstandings, or just because someone had a crappy day. Those of us who have been at it for a long time just don't care any more.

    I think Slashdot is a fine forum for arguing subtle points. I just think that when things like the GPL come into question, the hostile kneejerk reactions run rampant, and its a good idea to up your threshold a notch if you prefer a conversation to be a little more mature.

    - CmdrTaco

  7. Hole in GNU GPL?

    Gnu · · posted by ryuzaki0 · from the keeping-money-away-from-lawyers dept. · 426 comments
    Faré writes "It looks like a hole in the GNU GPL [may allow] people to practically turn GNU-free software into proprietary software, in as much as licenses are granted collectively rather than strictly individually. See the recent discussion thread on the cybernethics mailing-list. If collective licenses are enforceable, then there's nothing left to the GNU GPL (or any free software license); if so, I'll go to the bugroff license." Faré, who submitted this, is one of the main participants in the referenced discussion. Richard M. Stallman is another. They raise some interesting points. And the "bugroff license" is a hoot! An apology from Roblimo follows; click below to read it.

    Public Apology

    I posted this piece because I felt Faré raised some subtle but interesting ethical and legal points about the GPL that were worth discussion and clarification. I honestly did not expect to get flamed over my decision to post his submission.

    I believe that software licenses and documentation, like software itself, should be discussed as openly and publicly as possible so that bugs can be exposed and repaired. However, words (especially legal words) are far more slippery than code. With words the question, "Is this a bug?" is often far harder to answer than it is in software.

    But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.

    Please accept my humble apology. I was wrong. I will try not to make the mistake of posting anything even remotely like this on Slashdot ever again.

    - Robin

    Update: 01/18 01:37 by CT :Another Public Apology I apologize for Robin's "Humble" apology. Robin posts many good stories on Slashdot, but sometimes when he gets flamed, he takes it very personally. The reality is that every author on Slashdot gets a big load of flame every day as part of their job. They get this for mistakes, misunderstandings, or just because someone had a crappy day. Those of us who have been at it for a long time just don't care any more.

    I think Slashdot is a fine forum for arguing subtle points. I just think that when things like the GPL come into question, the hostile kneejerk reactions run rampant, and its a good idea to up your threshold a notch if you prefer a conversation to be a little more mature.

    - CmdrTaco

  8. A Critique of ESR's articles

    News · News · · posted by CmdrTaco · from the stuff-to-read dept. · 0 comments
    Andy Tai writes "Francois-Rene Rideau has written a short critique on ESR's papers (The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere). It points out some important weaknesses in ESR's arguments and is worth a read. "