Subject: Re: Licenses vs. public domain (ActiveState & Visual Perl)
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:35:37 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Dick" == Dick Hardt <> writes:

    Dick> Visual Perl is a development environment for working with
    Dick> existing Perl scripts and will work with standard, open
    Dick> source Perl builds.

I stand corrected.  That sounds very much better than my imagined
situation, and retract my (uninformed[1]) statement, and replace it
with the statement that "Visual Perl sounds like it could very well
help promote the use of Perl."

However, I do not (yet) retract the general statement that "app
builder" products that treat Perl as a target language describing a
virtual machine are unlikely to promote Perl use in the sense of open
source development.  I'm just correcting my misclassification of
Visual Perl into that group.

    Dick> Hope that clarifies things for those concerned. If not, feel
    Dick> free to ask me.

Is it _policy_ for Visual Perl to create code that is user-readable
and -modifiable wherever possible?  (I recognize that, as with tools
like yacc and lex, there are probably situations where it makes most
sense to create code that a human wouldn't want to try to maintain; I
just hope you try to minimize them.  I would also desire stronger
justification for human-unreadable code in a scripting language than
for auto-generated C.)

[1]  I am personally familiar with the output of automatic HTML
generators and of lex and yacc, very little with Visual * products; I
just extrapolated with some negative fudge factor thrown in for the
alleged Microsoft connection.

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."