• Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> Apr 03 2007
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Apr 03 2007
• Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> Apr 03 2007
• Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> Apr 03 2007

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

In that case, I won't look at Walter's code when I write the functions. 
Although I must admit, I am a maintainer of Walnut 1.x, which is released under
a GPL; and derived from Walter's work.

I haven't touched any of the *methods* yet, nor significantly looked at them. 
Additionally, Walnut 2.x is vastly different from DMDScript in implementation -
about as different as it can get considering they're both ECMAScript in D.

Considering I'm only doing this as a hobby, out of the goodness of my heart,
paying the $25,000 or whatnot license and working something out with Walter is
well beyond the budget.

I'll examine some other ECMAScript licenses, and see if any are more
compatible.  I tend to find I write more effective code when I can see what's
wrong with someone else's.  The methods themselves tend to be very predictable
from one engine to the next, since their external behavior is predefined, and
they all need to follow the same arguments.  I was just hoping to cut bug
hunting time.

Oh well.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Dan wrote:
 In that case, I won't look at Walter's code when I write the functions. 
Although I must admit, I am a maintainer of Walnut 1.x, which is released under
a GPL; and derived from Walter's work.
 
 I haven't touched any of the *methods* yet, nor significantly looked at them. 
Additionally, Walnut 2.x is vastly different from DMDScript in implementation -
about as different as it can get considering they're both ECMAScript in D.
 
 Considering I'm only doing this as a hobby, out of the goodness of my heart,
paying the $25,000 or whatnot license and working something out with Walter is
well beyond the budget.


Nobody said $25,000!!!

 I'll examine some other ECMAScript licenses, and see if any are more
compatible.  I tend to find I write more effective code when I can see what's
wrong with someone else's.  The methods themselves tend to be very predictable
from one engine to the next, since their external behavior is predefined, and
they all need to follow the same arguments.  I was just hoping to cut bug
hunting time.
 
 Oh well.


Why not just use GPL?

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Dan wrote:
 In that case, I won't look at Walter's code when I write the functions. 
Although I must admit, I am a maintainer of Walnut 1.x, which is released under
a GPL; and derived from Walter's work.
 
 I haven't touched any of the *methods* yet, nor significantly looked at them. 
Additionally, Walnut 2.x is vastly different from DMDScript in implementation -
about as different as it can get considering they're both ECMAScript in D.
 
 Considering I'm only doing this as a hobby, out of the goodness of my heart,
paying the $25,000 or whatnot license and working something out with Walter is
well beyond the budget.


 Nobody said $25,000!!!
 
 I'll examine some other ECMAScript licenses, and see if any are more
compatible.  I tend to find I write more effective code when I can see what's
wrong with someone else's.  The methods themselves tend to be very predictable
from one engine to the next, since their external behavior is predefined, and
they all need to follow the same arguments.  I was just hoping to cut bug
hunting time.
 
 Oh well.


 Why not just use GPL?


Well, I had this crazy notion that if it was put under a BSD license, and
actually pulled off it being the best engine out there...

I just figured it would be awesome to develop the *best* scripting engine and
release it so absolutely everyone can use it.  IE: make a drop-in for JScript,
Mozilla's JavaScript, Qtscript, and bind to ActiveX, DLL's, and DDL's.

All that flexibility would require the core engine be written first, and alot
of version'ing things off, as well as having dll, com server, and command
prompt mains.

If it were done well, licensed BSD, and properly promoted, I just think it
would make for a revival of what's currently the most used scripting language
in the world.

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Dan Wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 Nobody said $25,000!!!




$998.00

The most I've paid for anything software was $80 for Windows XP when it came
out through my aunt.  My computer was hand built by a friend for $440.  As of
next month, that'll be more than my monthly income.