• Tony West (8/8) Nov 12 2002 My apologies if any of the following has already been recently addressed...
• Walter (11/16) Nov 14 2002 implemented ?
• Mark T (13/22) Nov 21 2002 Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a co...
• Evan McClanahan (6/38) Nov 21 2002 Personally, I'm against standardization. I've become a big fan of the
• Walter (13/22) Nov 21 2002 commercial

Tony West <Tony_member pathlink.com> writes:

My apologies if any of the following has already been recently addressed.

When does Walter feel that the language will be stable and fully implemented ?

Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards body
(when it is stable) ?


Thanks,

Tony.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Tony West" <Tony_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:aqqgvk$2m6m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 When does Walter feel that the language will be stable and fully

implemented ?

Heck, C isn't stable and fully implemented! As long as people use D, it will
undergo more or less constant improvement. If you're asking is the basic
feature set there and usable now, the answer is yes.

 Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
 compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short
answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the
competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.

 Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

body
 (when it is stable) ?

That would be great!

Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ar1vc8$2ls$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
 compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short
answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the
competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.

 Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

body
 (when it is stable) ?

That would be great!

Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a commercial
or non-commercial compiler for that language?  If not, kinda defeats the purpose
of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler of a
language is bad.  Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C
compilers? 
Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your
implementation.  

I am not a big fan of "closed" languages such as Delphi. The language doesn't
have to be open source just open specification (i.e. free for all to implement).
I don't feel that the controlling body has to be ISO, an individual or company
is fine, as long as the specification itself is public (such as D is now).

Evan McClanahan <evan dontSPAMaltarinteractive.com> writes:

Personally, I'm against standardization.  I've become a big fan of the 
sort of 'design by fiat of the emperor' style of governance exemplified 
by python.  Of course, python is totally open source, so it's not really 
the same situation.

Evan


Mark T wrote:
 In article <ar1vc8$2ls$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 
Is there any problem with other people/organisations creating additional
compilers for D ? A licence fee for example.

That's covered in detail by the dual Artistic/GPL license for D. The short
answer is "no problem" for creating competing implementations. If the
competing implementation is open source, no fee would be required.

 
 
Has any consideration been given to submitting the language to a standards

body

(when it is stable) ?

That would be great!

 
 Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a
commercial
 or non-commercial compiler for that language?  If not, kinda defeats the
purpose
 of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler of a
 language is bad.  Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C
 compilers? 
 Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your
 implementation.  
 
 I am not a big fan of "closed" languages such as Delphi. The language doesn't
 have to be open source just open specification (i.e. free for all to
implement).
 I don't feel that the controlling body has to be ISO, an individual or company
 is fine, as long as the specification itself is public (such as D is now).
 

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Mark T" <Mark_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:aripn4$iqg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Doesn't making a language an ISO standard allow anyone to implement a

commercial
 or non-commercial compiler for that language?

I don't know.

  If not, kinda defeats the purpose
 of having a standard. License fees for implementing a commercial compiler

of a
 language is bad.

One can produce a commercial version using my code for free *provided* it is
open source - see the license.

 Did anyone pay fees to AT&T for all those commercial C
 compilers?

I think I'm the only person who ever asked AT&T for permission to do a C++
compiler <g>. (They graciously gave it, too.)

 Obviously, another commercial version couldn't just start with your
 implementation.

The license fee would apply to using my code to create a closed source
commercial implementation. If you started from scratch, there would be no
fee. The spec itself is copyrighted (as are ISO standards), but that
wouldn't stop anyone from implementing it.