i forgot one
p = string material density
"Jan Karman" <*axy*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:476f7998$0$25477$ba620dc5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Morten Kromberg" <mkrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:fb1bc6db-0645-4c45-b7a9-ea9682c58356@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Dec 22, 10:59 pm, "Jan Karman" <*a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is our goal to make our products easier to get started with.
>> We're investing in a new book about APL, tutorials and code samples,
>> which should all to come "on line" in 2008.
>>
>> We have also made the Dyalog product very much more accessible than
>> it has been in the past. It is free for educational use, and costs
>> only £50 for "non-commercial" use (any use except selling products
>> based on APL or using APL to run your own business). Several hundred
>>licenses have gone out under these programs since they were
>>introduced.
>>
>> If you just want to share techniques and are not charging for
>> your work (even indirectly), note that ONE of the ways to license
>> Dyalog APL is to pay 2% of your Dyalog-based revenues. If you are
>> giving your product away, 2% is not very much :-)
>>
>> It would be nice if we could just let our customers pay use whatever
>> they like, but we have a responsibility to our existing customers to
>> make enough money to stay in business (and GROW the business). The
>> market is not (yet) big enough for us to be able to give the products
>> away and live off "collateral" revenues.
>>
>> We're working on it / Morten
>>
>
> Excellent Morton!
>
> But first of all you have to be in need of it. This is not always in the
> fields
> of number-crunching. I once designed a "sentence generator" in
co-operation
> with
> a professor linguistics in Nijmegen (Neth). It had a db for some
specific
> categories of words (predicates &c.) and the function was just
generating
> almost
> correct English sentences, with all kinds of ****fts for e.g. inversions,
> gerunds
> and the like - it was then needed to provide texts for phonetic research
(too
> bad I lost the whole thing on the 'road').
>
> Sometimes there's also an individual use. E.g. when playing FreeCell, I
liked
> to
> know how many games I had to win before the score was increasing: I love
APL!!
>
> Now I have this story: I recently bought an 20-years-or-so old
harpsichord,
> from
> a church-choir. One probably knows the things about collective
possession on
> the
> one hand and collective maintenance on the other. It was totally
neglected.
> I'm
> now trying to get back the old state and quality (it's an exact copy of
the
> Baffo harpsichord in the Paris Musée de Musique, built by a reknowned
Belgian
> harpsichord-maker).
>
> Now, what is the ideal thickness of the strings, that is to say, of each
> string?
> Here's Taylor's formula, in K, that is: (for typing convenience, but
which can
> be litterally replaced by APL-primitives)
>
> d:(% f * l) * (T % p * pi % g) ^ 0.5
>
> in which d = thickness
> f = frequency in Herz
> l = length of string in metres
> T = string tension in kg weight
> g = acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/sec²
>
> What is the difference when tuning on a1 = 440 or a1 = 415?
>
> With APL it's easy to find the "ideal" average for re-stringing the
entire
> instrument at every thinkable frequency.
> I love APL!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
