All the sorting algorithms, all the OS scheduler algorithms, all the compiler technology, all the things you take for granted every day, would have been locked up and all the amazing development that required freely taking these basic ideas as building blocks for more ideas would have faced repeated decade-long roadblocks.
Somehow I remember doing all this stuff in the process of obtaining my CompSci degree a decade ago. I also seem to recall some crazy software realm - I believe they call it "open source" - that's generated all sorts of patent-free OS scheduling algorithms, compilers and interpreters for more patent-free languages I care to learn, and pretty much all the things I take for granted every day.
I seriously doubt computing has been advanced primarily due to patents.
Languages are just details. It's far better for developers to standardize on a set of processes - documentation, as-builts, code review, unit tests, TDD, scrum, FDD... pick a set of development processes that make sense for your company and project. Some methodologies always make sense - if developers write clear, concise docs and as-builts for their set of coding responsibilities (yeah, right:rolleyes:) then a good developer can pick the code up and run with it regardless of the language.
Language is just syntax. (OK, it's mostly syntax:p) But the primary point is that most developers have had a wide range of language exposure. I don't know Ruby nor Python, but I've done a helluvalota PERL, JavaScript, and C/C++ and it'd be fairly trivial for me to pick up a well documented Python app and maintain or extend it. Just give me a good O'Reilly book. It takes longer to figure out what the actually code is doing than to understand the syntax and semantics anyways.
...which I'm sure it could be, it would make a rockin system for $299.
I'd buy it, not because it's a Game Console, but because it's a linux box - and I can run what I want.
Anyone feel the same?
If I read MS code, then I can't participate in any Open-Source projects, because I've been influenced by MS proprietary code and trade secrets.
OK. Fine.
So, if I read GPL'd code, does that mean I can't participate in Closed-Source projects? Must every project I'm involved with be GPL'd and released to the public, because I've been influenced by GPL'd code?
Slashdot Mirror
A system that can run Crysis at full settings.
Well Blech. Apparently I can't read :-\
I hereby relinquish my posting privs for the day.
All the sorting algorithms, all the OS scheduler algorithms, all the compiler technology, all the things you take for granted every day, would have been locked up and all the amazing development that required freely taking these basic ideas as building blocks for more ideas would have faced repeated decade-long roadblocks.
Somehow I remember doing all this stuff in the process of obtaining my CompSci degree a decade ago. I also seem to recall some crazy software realm - I believe they call it "open source" - that's generated all sorts of patent-free OS scheduling algorithms, compilers and interpreters for more patent-free languages I care to learn, and pretty much all the things I take for granted every day.
I seriously doubt computing has been advanced primarily due to patents.
Languages are just details. It's far better for developers to standardize on a set of processes - documentation, as-builts, code review, unit tests, TDD, scrum, FDD ... pick a set of development processes that make sense for your company and project. Some methodologies always make sense - if developers write clear, concise docs and as-builts for their set of coding responsibilities (yeah, right :rolleyes:) then a good developer can pick the code up and run with it regardless of the language.
Language is just syntax. (OK, it's mostly syntax :p) But the primary point is that most developers have had a wide range of language exposure. I don't know Ruby nor Python, but I've done a helluvalota PERL, JavaScript, and C/C++ and it'd be fairly trivial for me to pick up a well documented Python app and maintain or extend it. Just give me a good O'Reilly book. It takes longer to figure out what the actually code is doing than to understand the syntax and semantics anyways.
...we wouldn't have COBOL in more than 50% of our business industry...
...which I'm sure it could be, it would make a rockin system for $299. I'd buy it, not because it's a Game Console, but because it's a linux box - and I can run what I want. Anyone feel the same?
OK. Fine.
So, if I read GPL'd code, does that mean I can't participate in Closed-Source projects? Must every project I'm involved with be GPL'd and released to the public, because I've been influenced by GPL'd code?
How far do we take this?