I agree fully with most of the statements, except the last one.
I think APL-vendors have been making careful terms in their policy,
as far as I can see. Free runtime interpreters seem to me crucial
for distributing, because "you need to be a domain expert before
you contemplate using it" (right you are!!), and if you do you must
be able to share your expertise with others in your field, or be able
just to provide "systems" (programs) even without awareness of the
underlying product.
"AAsk" <AA2e72E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2bcad4ec-187a-4a09-963d-5faf21e198c5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> A. APL is ahead as a programming language, without exception. It's
> design has proved itself beyond ny doubt because it was designed to
> work under DOS and has now evolved [seamlessly] to work with the
> current height of .NET and in Linux. As programming languages, Visual
> APL, APL/W, and APLX have credentials that are way beyond anything
> that go by way pf programming languages. I expect APL2 would be in
> this same group-only I do not know enough about APL2.
> B. I do NOT believe that APL vendors should give away their APL for
> free, although, APL/W and APLX come very close to this with their 'non-
> commercial use' licensing offer and APL2 is free to educationa
> establishments. Generally, the products are exactly the same as the
> commercial products.
>
> However,
>
> 1. there is no queue of people knocking at the APL door to gain
> admission.
> 2. APL, apparently, is not a tool in the IT toolbox like any other.
> For APL, you need to be a domain expert before you contemplate using
> it - that means that all the criteria that the IT (cottage) industry
> holds dear goes out of the window when it comes to APL.
> 3. Microsoft have provided free Express versions that can be used for
> commercial development - that includes not just the .NET programming
> languages but SQL Server too. IBM offer a version of DB2 for free as
> do ORACLE of their databases for own use.
>
> So, might there be room to contemplate APL as a product whereby its
> use (after the payment of a reasonable fee for the acquisition of the
> product) is free (or subject to a minimal charge) but that its
> deployment is subject to a licence. At present, you have a 'small'
> runtime licensing fee. Why not redistribute the cost - small product
> cost, larger deployment cost?
>
|
