Re: Metrowerks and Apple ?

In article <d8khl2$agg$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >>If you implement ISO 7185 Pascal,
> >>you have Mac Pascal.
> > 
> > 
> > No, it's the other way round. Mac Pascal is a superset of the ISO 
> > standard (unless the ISO standard includes e.g. automatic typecasting
of 
> > 4 character strings to 32 bit integers).
> 
> Again, this strikes me as a word game (sorry).

You said "If you implement ISO 7185 Pascal, you have Mac Pascal." That 
is plain wrong, since Mac Pascal is more than just ISO 7185 Pascal. So I 
said it's the other way round: if you implement Mac Pascal, then you 
have ISO 7185 Pascal.

> > No, because there is FPC (and regarding TP compatibility, there is
also 
> > GPC). Unless they can patent language constructs or other things vital

> > to implement a language, they cannot lock in anyone.
> 
> Not true. You may or may not use someones extentions, thats a choice.
> If you don't implement some of the language basics, and then implement
> the same functions in a nonstandard way, thats forcing your users
> to "go proprietary", and its a standard game with proprietary software
> makers.

If there is an alternative available (or multiple alternatives as in 
this case), people are by definition not locked in to one product. Just 
like people are not "locked in IP Pascal if they write programs 
according to ISO 7185 Pascal", because there are multiple Pascal 
compilers available which compile such programs.

> Its also one of the things that open software was supposed to solve,
> i.e., open software is not supposed to build proprietary systems to
> lock users in.

There is no problem with open (I suppose you mean Free as in Free 
Software by the GNU definition) software using its own standards or even 
implementing other proprietary standards. Since the software is Free, 
everyone is also free to make derivatives based off that code and can 
inspect how everything works.

Open does not by definition mean "the same as everybody else".

> >>I'm not blaming FPC for this, just wondering why an open source
> >>community would continue it.
> > 
> > Free Pascal is not open source because we want to kill Borland or 
> > because we think people have an inherent right to or need for a free
and 
> > open source Pascal compiler, but simply because that is the most 
> > efficient development model for us.
> 
> Again, you are misquoting me, I never said any of that.

You were wondering why an "open source community" would continue 
sup****ting a proprietary language. This implied to me that you consider 
that to somehow runs counter to the principle of "open source 
communities".

> > We do not use open source because of ideologic or "community" reasons,

> > but because of pragmatic reasons. And we only implemented Borland
Pascal 
> > sup****t until now because that was the only language which interested
us.
> 
> And now its changed. So what will you do ?

I thought I have already said several times that we have already added 
quite a lot Mac Pascal sup****t lately and are further improving it?


Jonas