You know, I've thought the same thing. I can only be a really good software engineer (they are not one and the same with programmers!) if I study software engineering practices.
This is why I am going to be a computer scientist =).
I suppose I shouldn't have forgotten to add that little smiley at the end of the post...
I guess I was just poking fun at the whole RMS craziness that has happened recently. I'm not (intentionally) spreading FUD. I'm glad you like to jump to conclusions, tho. It was a satiric comment. Forgot the smiley. My fault.
I highly respect RMS, even though I don't agree with everything he says/does and have issues with his personality.
I'm about to spew off on my views about education and how it is very much misunderstood, thus, condemned on traits that are not really applicable to it. Update: I basically stick to CompSci and Programming. I didn't get to the College/University paradigm...
Firstly, people tend to not quite understand the difference between the fields of programming and computer science. They are not the same thing. A computer scientist has a ciriculum rooted mostly in theory and discrete mathematics. Programmers, conversely, deal in a much more pragmatic atmosphere. It's theory vs. the practical.
Computer science is mostly concerned with computation in a general sense (asymptotic analysis, formal langauges, automata, etc.). These, on their own, do not stem from programming. They do, however, enhance it. A computer scienctist can live without programming (usually, they don't...) but a programmer sure can't live without computer science. I'm sure people can tell a programmer who doesn't understand the notion of a time complexity analysis or data structures. They probably suck.
Programmers are concerned with actually getting some tangible system up and running. In other words, they have real jobs =). Many more esthestic issues arise in programming. Style, modularity of code, etc.
They tend to collide in the world of software engineering. Whether this is an engineering discipline or a computer science one is still up in the air. Suffice is to say, it uses the theoretical and some time-tested practices to achieve it's goals. It is much more practical than computer science.
Now, here comes the real problem: people tend to not know what field they are in. They misuse the terms. Also, those who go to school tend to find that it is not what what they thought, mostly because of the misunderstanding and gross misuse of the terms. I find those who want to program do this the most. They can't understand why they have to use something that they see no use for. Often, this is a mix of short-sightedness and bad instruction. As soon as some math-oriented theory creeps in, a large chunk of people say "This is stupid". When you have to program in a language you don't see as useful (e.g., Scheme), they say "This is never used in the real world". Perhaps you should stop and think - what is the point to the course I am enrolled in? In the class I had that used Scheme, it wasn't to learn Scheme outright, but rather to grasp concepts in programming languages that Scheme demonstrates more clearly.
Think about this: how in the world would you tailor an education system to meet the expectations of everyone who used it? You probably can't. What is important to realize is that even if some of the course doesn't seem useful, there probably is - you just need to look deeper. That's a sign of a good student as well. Getting more out than what is put in. Following the implications.
However, after extolling the virtues of education, I should note that it is not for everybody. Assess what you need and don't go just becuase you are supposed to. However, don't put it down as wasteful because I can guarentee you many people down the road will say "I'm glad I took that."
This post got a little off track and has to be cut short due to time, but I think I (sorta) got my point across =).
The consultations will go on, and there's still hope that a settlement between RMS and CNRI will be found that produces a license that's compatible with the GPL.
Sorry to point this out, but to RMS, the only license that is compatible with the GPL is the GPL.
This is a very good point. This is part of the reason I use Adobe's acroread instead of xpdf most of the time. acroread is just better. I try to avoid getting PDF files if I can, but sometimes I can't. I make an affort to support free software most of the time, but calling non-free software "evil" is basically wrong and just as short-sighted as commercial places saying all free software is "anti-capitalist".
As much as I like the idea of free software and have no problem abiding by the GPL, by no means should this be the only option.
This article is so anecdotal, I have a hard time believing it, as nice as it would be. For one thing, the article is entirely disjointed (what does Oracle's second in commnad have to do with this?) and the "evidence" reads like something from the Weekly World News.
The stories from the article seem more like disgruntled employees taking truths and turning them into half-truths. Everybody does it - especially kids. It's a rather natural thing to do when annoyed with something. "It's the worst meal I've ever had!" "They played Yanni, like, 100 hours every day!", etc.
I think that some is this is true (MS probably does use lots of Unices) but to take this as hard fact would be irresponsible. Still, it's rather amusing and would be great if it were indeed true.
I've yet to see an exam require a copy of the book's receipt.
As I have been told by a professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business while taking a Software Management course (ugh - don't make me do that again!), she claimed that buying the course materials was mandatory for some courses. As appaling as I thought that was, I happened across some books after a Biz class had ended and sure enough, I saw this:
Keep this proof of purchase to receive seperate distributions and course credit
This was actually in the Software Management course materials book as well (it was taught by the Biz school) but the requirement was waived.
I don't think it gets waived by the Ivey profs. Anyone graduate from Ivey and if so, can you substantiate this?
Try converting the DeCSS source code (generously posted by an anon coward here) into English. Write an article about it. Make it a story. Sure, converting those array's of hex values into some sort of coherent story won't be simple, but if you're creative, it could be cool.
Make it so if I read the story, I could easily write the source file - just don't publish the source verbatim. Wouldn't this be like outlining how to build explosives? or how to prepare meatloaf? lose weight? murder someone?
Crime novels and true crime stories regularily contain ideas on how to go about breaking the law. Where do you think copycat killers get their ideas? Obviously, it's illegal to go kill someone, but it's certainly not illegal to outline how to do it.
Pushing this kind of limit would be a helluva test, I think. If I had some time, I'd convert it to story form, but maybe someone with better writing talent is up to the challenge?
Maybe this will make compelling evidence to show that source code and writing are equivalent =)
With respect to the posts about The Simpsons being uneven:
The Simpsons is an evolving cartoon/series. If you have watched it, you'll have noticed the evolution it has gone through and the different artistic influence it has been under. Most people love the episodes when Conan O'Brian was producing/writing. Some of those episodes are classics, I agree. However, I will tell you right now that if it had stayed that way, you would be just as disillusioned with it as you are now. Why? Because it would be stagnent (a la Full House).
For a couple seasons there, The Simpsons had some radical departures from the way Conan did things (the Frank Grimey episode being a good example). This perturbed many people and I, unfortunately, had just discovered The Simpsons mailing list at that time. The response was awful. People had obviously put no thought into their repsonses (it happens an awful lot, you know). They did not understand why the show was so different.
The reason it was so different was that if the show did not evolve, it would be come tiresome and in a major way. So they started making episodes with wacked out storylines - just to explore. They could do this because their success allowed them to.
In the past couple years, they've gone back to being really wacky. They are starting to make a lot more in references to themselves (witness this year's season finale) and making fun of the fact a show of this nature has lasted this long. Make no mistake - the producers/writers know what they're doing and they are well aware of what an episode is like before they put on the air. They spend lots of time preparing it.
Many artists have done this sort of act before (Madonna and Metallica being a couple examples). They are aware that if they don't take new directions, they will be labelled as having lost their creative edge. The Simpsons are no different.
Having said all that, I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by uneven. Characters? Plots? Consistency? The core characters have been the same for a long time (save for some flukes - like Principal Skinner), the plots have always been a bit crazy and for it's entire history, The Simpsons has never been consistent - especially when Conan was around. It thrives on inconsistency. It's almost a Simpsons trademark.
Instead of saying The Simpsons is uneven, maybe you can rephrase it as "I don't like the direction they've taken". I think that would have a lot more merit (that's the way I feel about Metallica, anyway).
It would be like going to the unveiling and choking on the smoke.
This kind of post reminds of a Dennis Miller quote: "There's a reason 'Wheel of Fortune' is on right after 'Jeopardy': Once you've been forced to choke down the foul tasting tequila shot of your own abject ignorance, it's always nice to be able to bite into the refreshing lime wedge of other people's incredible fucking stupidity."
Its a shame when I see so many schools teaching "hands on/technical programming" in their Computer Science courses... IMHO and experience, teaching CS with an "algorithmic" approach is much more effective.
You're elluding to an important point - Computer Science is not programming.
Programming is a tool computer scientists use to prove theorems and demonstrate important principles, but to do computer science, one does not need to be able to program. In fact, many computer scientists don't know how to program at all (or very well).
The problem is that because the device you usually program on is a computer, people lump programming in with computer science. If you are taking a computer science program and you come out and can't program, you didn't take a bad program - you just took more pure computer science than others. No big deal.
CS is a subset of Programming, but the opposite inclusion is not true.
Interesting, but don't the "roots" at some point become so distant as to be irrelevant? Isn't it better to look forwards, solving the problems of today and tomorrow, than to stay in the past constantly trying to re-solve old and obsolete problems?
If you don't know where you are coming from, going forward might take you somewhere you have already been.
And the point to doing that is....?
Woz
Re:Newsflash: Crappy movies are crappy movies!
on
End Of Fox Animation
·
· Score: 2
The problem was Woo managed to cliche himself.
He played up all the stylistic elements that made him an original director and made them looked hackneyed and stale. The fight scenes did look good, but when you slow them down, there is no action - and every "action" scene was slowed down, making for a slow movie. Essentially, nothing happened. By the time you got to the end (where something resembling action took place), you just didn't care.
Movies like MI:2 are not known for their riveting storyline and in-depth character studies. They are simplistic and shallow. They require adrenaline to be made interesting. MI:2 did not have it. For that matter, neither did Titan A.E., but at least it looked a helluva lot better (visuals do matter in film, you know).
Woz
Re:Newsflash: Crappy movies are crappy movies!
on
End Of Fox Animation
·
· Score: 2
I did watch (and liked) Akira and Ghost in the Shell. I've seen a couple other ones, but I can't recall what they were. I also thought they were good. I guess I just can't get rabid about it, but I certainly have no serious complaints about it (like I do about MI:2). I'm probably turned off from it by the insane fans I hear that debunk anything that comes from Hollywood (animated or not) as pure crap and anything anime as an entertainment zenith. I guess typing that up makes my position seem kind of stupid.
It's probably time to give it another shot. I will check out your suggestion. Thanks.
Woz
Re:Newsflash: Crappy movies are crappy movies!
on
End Of Fox Animation
·
· Score: 2
Titan A.E. (hackneyed story), while not being a masterpiece, was much more enjoyable than MI:2 (garbage directon). Chicken Run (well written/acted, funny) outshines both of them by leaps and bounds. It's a shame Titan A.E. didn't do better - it was the better film that weekend and I would like to see the animation evolve instead of be stymied by lack of dollars. I don't enjoy anime all that much (maybe I should watch more), so I like to see what non-Disney Hollywood pumps out in animation. Disney animation, while very well done, usually doesn't grab my attention story-wise.
Hollywood has this stigma about the genre or catch of the film being reason to make another one of the same type (i.e., imitate). However, I doubt they fail to understand the elements that make the film good. They do know, however, that if you make another one, "they will come". People seem to fall for this all the time. The movies make money, so they keep making them. Some cast and crews put some real effort into them, so you get some gems. It's the way it goes.
I took a course on Programming Langauges, and we studied Scheme as our first language. It was a major hurdle for many people. This is probably because you have to think in functions and recursively, as opposed to the structured/imperative way of assignment.
The ultimate goal of functional languages is to have everything act as a function of it's inputs. Setting variables should not be necessary. However, it never works out that way. It would be hell to write that many functions. The spirit is still there, tho.
Probably the biggest problem was the fact that a function is a first-class value (i.e., it can be passed as a parameter, returned from a function and assigned to a variable). Writing functions within functions to take care of little recursive problems was a major stumbling block. Instead of single-stepping your way through an algorithm, you thought of a way to write an anoymous function inside another function to take care of a something. This function is not defined - it is created at run-time. The fact that you could return it was weirding people out as well.
Another thing that throws people for a loop is the lack of non-local exits. There is no return in Scheme (or Elisp. I don't know about Lisp, but I would imagine it is similar). Instead, you have a very generalized procedure called call-with-current-continutation that does everything return does and more. It actually allows you to save the state of your program, put it in a variable and use it again later. Thus, you can make generators for infinite data structures. This is hard to grasp, especially after two years of C/C++/Java.
The fact that everything is a list in Scheme and it is not typed can be a bit of a stumbling block.
Structured/imperative programming is a much more natural way to program - at first. When you get some practice in functional languages, you see how incredibly powerful they can be. (this is not to say C/C++ style languages aren't powerful. They just lack some really handy features functional languages have as primitives)
I think people avoid them because of the total paradigm shift that is involved. It really is quite a leap. There is no lack of literature on it, it's just not published by IDG Books or SAMS;) The fact that it is not typed and makes it a little slower is also a factor. They also hate Lots of Infernal Stupid Parenthesis! =)
Simple. It makes the syntax dead simple to parse. All Scheme and Lisp has this general form:
(function-namearguments...)
Of course, there are special forms, like cond and macros, etc.. I've written a parser for C, and I'd much rather write a parser for Scheme and variants. Much easier.
Anyway, delimiting expressions with parenthesis makes parsing much simpler and with an editor that matches parenth's for you, very easy to write in.
From the way it sounds, I would say that the compiler farm is not obligated to give out it's source code. You are only benefiting from the output of gcc, as you mentioned. I don't believe the GPL has any stipulations regarding input and output - as well it shouldn't. This starts to enter entirely new territory.
If I modify a GPL'ed program and do not distribute it, am I really depriving you of anything? In some sense, yes, because I am not sharing my improvements with the community I got the original program from. In some sense no, because I'm not actually preventing you from getting at anything.
Now, if I let you reap the benefits of my improvements but don't actually release anything, am I depriving you? Again, yes and no. Yes, because I am not allowing you access to the changes I have made, but you get the benefits. No, because I never released it in the first place, so I am not stopping you from getting at the improvements because they are not there to get at.
Reaping the benefits of a GPL'ed program change without having a release and thus, not having the source code, sounds a bit unethical to me, but it is probably legal. The person is just being an asshole =).
I think, however, modifying the GPL to force a program to be released under the GPL if it is made use of is a bad idea. That's kinda what it's boiling down to. However, a lawyer would word it better;)
Slashdot Mirror
I think Taco was being facetious...
Woz
Excellent point/post.
You know, I've thought the same thing. I can only be a really good software engineer (they are not one and the same with programmers!) if I study software engineering practices.
This is why I am going to be a computer scientist =).
Woz
I suppose I shouldn't have forgotten to add that little smiley at the end of the post...
I guess I was just poking fun at the whole RMS craziness that has happened recently. I'm not (intentionally) spreading FUD. I'm glad you like to jump to conclusions, tho. It was a satiric comment. Forgot the smiley. My fault.
I highly respect RMS, even though I don't agree with everything he says/does and have issues with his personality.
Anyway...
Woz
I'm about to spew off on my views about education and how it is very much misunderstood, thus, condemned on traits that are not really applicable to it. Update: I basically stick to CompSci and Programming. I didn't get to the College/University paradigm...
Firstly, people tend to not quite understand the difference between the fields of programming and computer science. They are not the same thing. A computer scientist has a ciriculum rooted mostly in theory and discrete mathematics. Programmers, conversely, deal in a much more pragmatic atmosphere. It's theory vs. the practical.
Computer science is mostly concerned with computation in a general sense (asymptotic analysis, formal langauges, automata, etc.). These, on their own, do not stem from programming. They do, however, enhance it. A computer scienctist can live without programming (usually, they don't...) but a programmer sure can't live without computer science. I'm sure people can tell a programmer who doesn't understand the notion of a time complexity analysis or data structures. They probably suck.
Programmers are concerned with actually getting some tangible system up and running. In other words, they have real jobs =). Many more esthestic issues arise in programming. Style, modularity of code, etc.
They tend to collide in the world of software engineering. Whether this is an engineering discipline or a computer science one is still up in the air. Suffice is to say, it uses the theoretical and some time-tested practices to achieve it's goals. It is much more practical than computer science.
Now, here comes the real problem: people tend to not know what field they are in. They misuse the terms. Also, those who go to school tend to find that it is not what what they thought, mostly because of the misunderstanding and gross misuse of the terms. I find those who want to program do this the most. They can't understand why they have to use something that they see no use for. Often, this is a mix of short-sightedness and bad instruction. As soon as some math-oriented theory creeps in, a large chunk of people say "This is stupid". When you have to program in a language you don't see as useful (e.g., Scheme), they say "This is never used in the real world". Perhaps you should stop and think - what is the point to the course I am enrolled in? In the class I had that used Scheme, it wasn't to learn Scheme outright, but rather to grasp concepts in programming languages that Scheme demonstrates more clearly.
Think about this: how in the world would you tailor an education system to meet the expectations of everyone who used it? You probably can't. What is important to realize is that even if some of the course doesn't seem useful, there probably is - you just need to look deeper. That's a sign of a good student as well. Getting more out than what is put in. Following the implications.
However, after extolling the virtues of education, I should note that it is not for everybody. Assess what you need and don't go just becuase you are supposed to. However, don't put it down as wasteful because I can guarentee you many people down the road will say "I'm glad I took that."
This post got a little off track and has to be cut short due to time, but I think I (sorta) got my point across =).
Woz
The consultations will go on, and there's still hope that a settlement between RMS and CNRI will be found that produces a license that's compatible with the GPL.
Sorry to point this out, but to RMS, the only license that is compatible with the GPL is the GPL.
Woz
This is a very good point. This is part of the reason I use Adobe's acroread instead of xpdf most of the time. acroread is just better. I try to avoid getting PDF files if I can, but sometimes I can't. I make an affort to support free software most of the time, but calling non-free software "evil" is basically wrong and just as short-sighted as commercial places saying all free software is "anti-capitalist".
As much as I like the idea of free software and have no problem abiding by the GPL, by no means should this be the only option.
Woz
(Disclaimer: these numbers should be taken within a fudge factor of 10!)
;-)
10! = 3628800
I'm sure you can be more accurate than that
Woz
This article is so anecdotal, I have a hard time believing it, as nice as it would be. For one thing, the article is entirely disjointed (what does Oracle's second in commnad have to do with this?) and the "evidence" reads like something from the Weekly World News.
The stories from the article seem more like disgruntled employees taking truths and turning them into half-truths. Everybody does it - especially kids. It's a rather natural thing to do when annoyed with something. "It's the worst meal I've ever had!" "They played Yanni, like, 100 hours every day!", etc.
I think that some is this is true (MS probably does use lots of Unices) but to take this as hard fact would be irresponsible. Still, it's rather amusing and would be great if it were indeed true.
Woz
As I have been told by a professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business while taking a Software Management course (ugh - don't make me do that again!), she claimed that buying the course materials was mandatory for some courses. As appaling as I thought that was, I happened across some books after a Biz class had ended and sure enough, I saw this:
This was actually in the Software Management course materials book as well (it was taught by the Biz school) but the requirement was waived.
I don't think it gets waived by the Ivey profs. Anyone graduate from Ivey and if so, can you substantiate this?
Woz
Right about now =)
Woz
Nice =)
;)
If I follow suit, would you say I'm being a rebel or bowing to peer pressure?
Woz
Try converting the DeCSS source code (generously posted by an anon coward here) into English. Write an article about it. Make it a story. Sure, converting those array's of hex values into some sort of coherent story won't be simple, but if you're creative, it could be cool.
Make it so if I read the story, I could easily write the source file - just don't publish the source verbatim. Wouldn't this be like outlining how to build explosives? or how to prepare meatloaf? lose weight? murder someone?
Crime novels and true crime stories regularily contain ideas on how to go about breaking the law. Where do you think copycat killers get their ideas? Obviously, it's illegal to go kill someone, but it's certainly not illegal to outline how to do it.
Pushing this kind of limit would be a helluva test, I think. If I had some time, I'd convert it to story form, but maybe someone with better writing talent is up to the challenge?
Maybe this will make compelling evidence to show that source code and writing are equivalent =)
Woz
With respect to the posts about The Simpsons being uneven:
The Simpsons is an evolving cartoon/series. If you have watched it, you'll have noticed the evolution it has gone through and the different artistic influence it has been under. Most people love the episodes when Conan O'Brian was producing/writing. Some of those episodes are classics, I agree. However, I will tell you right now that if it had stayed that way, you would be just as disillusioned with it as you are now. Why? Because it would be stagnent (a la Full House).
For a couple seasons there, The Simpsons had some radical departures from the way Conan did things (the Frank Grimey episode being a good example). This perturbed many people and I, unfortunately, had just discovered The Simpsons mailing list at that time. The response was awful. People had obviously put no thought into their repsonses (it happens an awful lot, you know). They did not understand why the show was so different.
The reason it was so different was that if the show did not evolve, it would be come tiresome and in a major way. So they started making episodes with wacked out storylines - just to explore. They could do this because their success allowed them to.
In the past couple years, they've gone back to being really wacky. They are starting to make a lot more in references to themselves (witness this year's season finale) and making fun of the fact a show of this nature has lasted this long. Make no mistake - the producers/writers know what they're doing and they are well aware of what an episode is like before they put on the air. They spend lots of time preparing it.
Many artists have done this sort of act before (Madonna and Metallica being a couple examples). They are aware that if they don't take new directions, they will be labelled as having lost their creative edge. The Simpsons are no different.
Having said all that, I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by uneven. Characters? Plots? Consistency? The core characters have been the same for a long time (save for some flukes - like Principal Skinner), the plots have always been a bit crazy and for it's entire history, The Simpsons has never been consistent - especially when Conan was around. It thrives on inconsistency. It's almost a Simpsons trademark.
Instead of saying The Simpsons is uneven, maybe you can rephrase it as "I don't like the direction they've taken". I think that would have a lot more merit (that's the way I feel about Metallica, anyway).
Woz
It would be like going to the unveiling and choking on the smoke.
This kind of post reminds of a Dennis Miller quote: "There's a reason 'Wheel of Fortune' is on right after 'Jeopardy': Once you've been forced to choke down the foul tasting tequila shot of your own abject ignorance, it's always nice to be able to bite into the refreshing lime wedge of other people's incredible fucking stupidity."
Woz
Its a shame when I see so many schools teaching "hands on/technical programming" in their Computer Science courses... IMHO and experience, teaching CS with an "algorithmic" approach is much more effective.
You're elluding to an important point - Computer Science is not programming.
Programming is a tool computer scientists use to prove theorems and demonstrate important principles, but to do computer science, one does not need to be able to program. In fact, many computer scientists don't know how to program at all (or very well).
The problem is that because the device you usually program on is a computer, people lump programming in with computer science. If you are taking a computer science program and you come out and can't program, you didn't take a bad program - you just took more pure computer science than others. No big deal.
CS is a subset of Programming, but the opposite inclusion is not true.
Woz
Interesting, but don't the "roots" at some point become so distant as to be irrelevant? Isn't it better to look forwards, solving the problems of today and tomorrow, than to stay in the past constantly trying to re-solve old and obsolete problems?
If you don't know where you are coming from, going forward might take you somewhere you have already been.
And the point to doing that is....?
Woz
The problem was Woo managed to cliche himself.
He played up all the stylistic elements that made him an original director and made them looked hackneyed and stale. The fight scenes did look good, but when you slow them down, there is no action - and every "action" scene was slowed down, making for a slow movie. Essentially, nothing happened. By the time you got to the end (where something resembling action took place), you just didn't care.
Movies like MI:2 are not known for their riveting storyline and in-depth character studies. They are simplistic and shallow. They require adrenaline to be made interesting. MI:2 did not have it. For that matter, neither did Titan A.E., but at least it looked a helluva lot better (visuals do matter in film, you know).
Woz
I did watch (and liked) Akira and Ghost in the Shell. I've seen a couple other ones, but I can't recall what they were. I also thought they were good. I guess I just can't get rabid about it, but I certainly have no serious complaints about it (like I do about MI:2). I'm probably turned off from it by the insane fans I hear that debunk anything that comes from Hollywood (animated or not) as pure crap and anything anime as an entertainment zenith. I guess typing that up makes my position seem kind of stupid.
It's probably time to give it another shot. I will check out your suggestion. Thanks.
Woz
Titan A.E. (hackneyed story), while not being a masterpiece, was much more enjoyable than MI:2 (garbage directon). Chicken Run (well written/acted, funny) outshines both of them by leaps and bounds. It's a shame Titan A.E. didn't do better - it was the better film that weekend and I would like to see the animation evolve instead of be stymied by lack of dollars. I don't enjoy anime all that much (maybe I should watch more), so I like to see what non-Disney Hollywood pumps out in animation. Disney animation, while very well done, usually doesn't grab my attention story-wise.
Hollywood has this stigma about the genre or catch of the film being reason to make another one of the same type (i.e., imitate). However, I doubt they fail to understand the elements that make the film good. They do know, however, that if you make another one, "they will come". People seem to fall for this all the time. The movies make money, so they keep making them. Some cast and crews put some real effort into them, so you get some gems. It's the way it goes.
Woz
Granted, but since it's interpreted, it is something to consider.
:)
Also, properly indented (as with any language), it's really not all that hard to read. Just gotta think differently
Woz
Try writing a parser. When things are delimited, it makes it a helluva lots simpler and faster, especially since there is little to no ambiguity.
Woz
I took a course on Programming Langauges, and we studied Scheme as our first language. It was a major hurdle for many people. This is probably because you have to think in functions and recursively, as opposed to the structured/imperative way of assignment.
;) The fact that it is not typed and makes it a little slower is also a factor. They also hate Lots of Infernal Stupid Parenthesis! =)
The ultimate goal of functional languages is to have everything act as a function of it's inputs. Setting variables should not be necessary. However, it never works out that way. It would be hell to write that many functions. The spirit is still there, tho.
Probably the biggest problem was the fact that a function is a first-class value (i.e., it can be passed as a parameter, returned from a function and assigned to a variable). Writing functions within functions to take care of little recursive problems was a major stumbling block. Instead of single-stepping your way through an algorithm, you thought of a way to write an anoymous function inside another function to take care of a something. This function is not defined - it is created at run-time. The fact that you could return it was weirding people out as well.
Another thing that throws people for a loop is the lack of non-local exits. There is no return in Scheme (or Elisp. I don't know about Lisp, but I would imagine it is similar). Instead, you have a very generalized procedure called call-with-current-continutation that does everything return does and more. It actually allows you to save the state of your program, put it in a variable and use it again later. Thus, you can make generators for infinite data structures. This is hard to grasp, especially after two years of C/C++/Java.
The fact that everything is a list in Scheme and it is not typed can be a bit of a stumbling block.
Structured/imperative programming is a much more natural way to program - at first. When you get some practice in functional languages, you see how incredibly powerful they can be. (this is not to say C/C++ style languages aren't powerful. They just lack some really handy features functional languages have as primitives)
I think people avoid them because of the total paradigm shift that is involved. It really is quite a leap. There is no lack of literature on it, it's just not published by IDG Books or SAMS
Woz
Why does it use all parenthesis?
Simple. It makes the syntax dead simple to parse. All Scheme and Lisp has this general form:
(function-name arguments...)
Of course, there are special forms, like cond and macros, etc.. I've written a parser for C, and I'd much rather write a parser for Scheme and variants. Much easier.
Anyway, delimiting expressions with parenthesis makes parsing much simpler and with an editor that matches parenth's for you, very easy to write in.
Woz
From the way it sounds, I would say that the compiler farm is not obligated to give out it's source code. You are only benefiting from the output of gcc, as you mentioned. I don't believe the GPL has any stipulations regarding input and output - as well it shouldn't. This starts to enter entirely new territory.
;)
If I modify a GPL'ed program and do not distribute it, am I really depriving you of anything? In some sense, yes, because I am not sharing my improvements with the community I got the original program from. In some sense no, because I'm not actually preventing you from getting at anything.
Now, if I let you reap the benefits of my improvements but don't actually release anything, am I depriving you? Again, yes and no. Yes, because I am not allowing you access to the changes I have made, but you get the benefits. No, because I never released it in the first place, so I am not stopping you from getting at the improvements because they are not there to get at.
Reaping the benefits of a GPL'ed program change without having a release and thus, not having the source code, sounds a bit unethical to me, but it is probably legal. The person is just being an asshole =).
I think, however, modifying the GPL to force a program to be released under the GPL if it is made use of is a bad idea. That's kinda what it's boiling down to. However, a lawyer would word it better
Woz
This kind of attitude is not going to help at all.
Doing nothing will most certainly not change anything. We don't need to prove that. At least makeing an effort has a chance.
Wait until encryption is outlawed because people are utterly passive about how the country is run. Then see what happens.
There is no fallback method you seem to be advocating. You must be active.
Woz