4 ms·

Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you co

by plam3ns 12y ago

Hello, yes, it required a commercial implementation of Common Lisp, of which a license at that time (and still today!) can be purchased cheaply, of which you could have downloaded the "Personal Edition", which has very few limitations, none of which concerning the language itself. And if you have asked for an evaluation version, you would certainly have received a time constrained full version of that in your eyes stupid commercial implementation called LispWorks. So - ignorance while using the words "stupid commercial" may be your fault, but by far not the one of either OM or LispWorks. This is of course not the point. Calling the LispWorks implementation of Common Lisp "stupid", a result of decades of man hours of work of actually not only pretty intelligent, but also very knowledgeable men, who managed to produce a fine product, provided it for a real bargain and surrounded it by a stellar (take my word for it) support for their customers, is sad. Fundamentally. Not in the way of, like if your or mine team wins the 2014 WM of FIFA. Sad in the sense like if I see someone literary pissing at the musicians of the London Philharmonic Orchestra because he doesn't like the sound of violines or just doesn't like Dvořák and especially doesn't like the fact, that he needs to buy a ticket to experience them, one who seems never tried to master any instrument to, if not to understand, then at least to get a feeling about the matter (otherwise he would have already developed some respect), but still he talks about it with words like "stupid commercial". I hope you don't see an insult in my words, but an inspiration to read more, to learn more. There are intelligent people around you, believe me. And this is rewarding. Finally a lot of them provide their output for bargain (if we talk about Lisp then like LispWorks, but you can take any area) or for nothing monetary (like the authors/maintainers of SBCL). Regards

uniclaude 12y ago
Your points are all good, but you seem to fail to understand the reason why gp posted this comment. When seeing the Open prefix in the name of some software or platform, people usually except free things, because they've been used to it. Calling LispWorks stupid might not have been the brightest move around, but the concern was somehow valid.
- _delirium 12y ago
  The current version is free in several senses, though not all at the same time. The sources to OpenMusic itself are libre (GPL), and the OpenMusic binaries made available for download are gratis (they are self-contained and don't require your own copy of LispWorks). But you do need a copy of LispWorks to build your own binaries. It's free software, but depends on a proprietary compiler. I believe the main LispWorks dependency is on the GUI toolkit. There have been some porting efforts to SBCL/GTK in the past, but afaik none have been completed.
  - keithpeter 12y ago
    To summarise: I can download and use OpenMusic the source code of which is issued under the GPL. But to exercise my free software style rights to hack on OpenMusic and recompile the changed software I need to buy a licence for a closed commercial product. Have I got that right?
    - _delirium 12y ago
      Depends entirely on what kind of hacking you want to do. If you want to pull out parts that are portable Common Lisp and use those, you're free to do so. If you want to hack the code so the whole thing compiles on SBCL, you're free to do that too. Similar situation to free-software apps whose developer targets OSX: no legal barrier to using the code on Linux, but may take some work.
- plam3ns 12y ago
  Of course I might fail to understand the reason :) First - OM is licensed under GPL (see their website). While the word "open" in the context of GPL can be discutable depending on the view of the gp, that's not a fault of LispWorks. Second - if not the GPL has been the confusion in the gp, then - to run AND develop for OM no one needs a commercial license of LispWorks (the runtime/compiler/lister/editor are distributed with OM). A professional tool like LispWorks is needed only to recompile OM itself, which is so or so not a hurdle for the gp until he doesn't gain enough knowledge about and experience with OM AND Common Lisp. By the time he gets there, I'm sure - he will either decide that neither OM or Lisp are his things and then again the license is irrelevant - or he will decide to pursue that path in which case the costs for LW are a bargain in comparison to the value one gets. If not OM, but Lisp seems to be something for him at the end - even then he can choose from about a dozen different implementations with different licensing terms from GPL though Open Source up to licenses for tens of tausends per CPU per year. Third - "open" can be a bit ladden with "free", but it can mean also an "open architecture" or a "development of software open to the public" or whatever. Again - not reading what is written on the website of the OM creators doesn't do good to the gp. Last - if you or gp mean that one has to bite in every carrot with an engraved "free" on it is serious then... :) But I started with the idea to help the gp to look deeper before using strong language and less to continue bashing on soft reasoning. Peace and regards
kaoD 12y ago
Well, I was forced to use Windows+LispWorks in college and I found myself (and my classmates) shouting "stupid LipsWorks!" at it more than we should have. The GUI leaves a lot to be desired and it crashed on my face regularly, progress lost included. Exploratory programming was a real nightmare and I got into a workflow where I basically had to copy any progress into Notepad and paste it all back from the beginning when LW crashed. I don't remember the specifics of how and why it happened, because we avoided it like the plague from there on. If GP called it stupid he might have his own reasons to do so (even if he could've said it more politely). Dismissing his opinion because of how much effort someone has put into LW is not helpful. The man hours of work mean nothing because as a consumer I don't care how much work you've put into it, but only about the quality of the product which, based on my experience, is lacking. I hope you don't see an insult in my words, just sharing my experience. YMMV.
- plam3ns 12y ago
  In no case I see insult - I just still wonder - probably having English as by far not my first language leaves a lot to desire in the way I try to convince someone to open a book before moaning "stupid". "Well, I was forced to use Windows+LispWorks in college and I found myself (and my classmates) shouting "stupid LipsWorks!" at it more than we should have." - this is usually (at least in the context of LispWorks very unusual for years already (me personally have used it for about a decade in the last 14 years for production software) - I don't know in which decade you tried it, but at least in the 21-st century LispWorks has been pretty stable for the majority of it's users as far as I have heard, and some of them run trading platforms for example on it. Yes, the GUI has always been a weak point of the product, but to have a workflow as you describe points to errors outside of LispWorks - probably education, probably not having called a single time the support I have praised earlier etc. But the important part is not who would cry louder - you can gather the whole class and continue to shout "stupid LispWorks" - it's without value for all. "If GP called it stupid he might have his own reasons to do so (even if he could've said it more politely). Dismissing his opinion because of how much effort someone has put into LW is not helpful." - Well - his opinion is uninformed, uneducated and probably insulting. He seems to be pretty young and more loud than knowledgable, so it has been a chance to help. "The man hours of work mean nothing.." - Sure - it's just again unedecuated in that specific case. "..because as a consumer I don't care how much work you've put into it, but only about the quality of the product.." - I really don't know how a bunch of undergraduates can for so long not listen to their professor or to not call support and to torture themselfes with notepad and still long after finishing that school still not reflect about their experience and the right actions to take in comparison to just moaning. "...and still have which, based on my experience, is lacking..." - Sure, the GUI is and probably will be lacking in every Common Lisp implementation incl. LispWorks'. But if you have listened to your professor at that time, you would at least today know, that this has never been his main point of teaching with Common Lisp or that LispWorks is a tool for several companies running some important software without crashes. 10 years ago as well as today. Whatever - the discussion/argumentation evolves to a kindergarden. My point, I repeat, has been to sensibilize the GP to some need for learning before categorizing the work of others as "stupid commercial". Either I can animate you or the GP to learn more or I can't. That's all. It's your life, not mine. Cheers
moher 12y ago
Cheaply? You seriously think that 1200 EUR per user is cheap?
- blue1 12y ago
  I've seen this discussion around LW an incredible number of times. The problem seems to be exactly this one: LW may be a nice product (many experience lispers seem to think so) or not (as someone on this thread is arguing), but in all cases LW's price is seen as incredibly high for today's sensitivities, especially given that there are very fine Common Lisp compilers around that are free (although way less refined, in the GUI department especially). LW has chosen to follow this kind of 80's-like business model and it's certainly their right to do so. They certainly have their reasons. Although personally I doubt this road is future-proof (or even present-proof).
  - moher 12y ago
    I like the JetBrains pricing model, separating companies and individual developers.
- plam3ns 12y ago
  This is very simple. Saying that a Ferarri or a good Swiss watch or building an oil rafinery is expensive, because one doesn't want or can't buy it, just for the sake of it, is without sense. Cost as an absolute number is often meaningless. It gets a meaning in terms of value it could or does provide. For example, where I live, a not big appartent costs about 1500 EUR per month to rent. Is that expensive? Sure - everythign above 0 is expensive. But for me the value provided that I have a roof over the head is greater then the absolute cost. Well, I have lived also in places where this price for a similar appartment is about 100 EUR. Is that cheap? No - in comparison to the local purchasing power - no. But again - the value for me has been more important. Do I like the pricing of let say Oracle? Why should I.. But I can generate more value for clients and/or me using Oracle while using it in comparison to waiting around and telling everyone, that Oracle is expensive. As far as I know even in the most broken economies of the world, software developers can provide value for customers which exceeds the 1200 EUR initial and later 300 EUR per year of maintenance. If they can't, the problem is usually not the price of LW, but unemployment or impossibility to find paying clients for all possible economic or personal reasons beyond the price of LW. If you read earlier posts - you would have known, that if you just want to learn about LW or Common Lisp in general - there are plenty of options - LW provides a "Personal Edition" with the price of 0, or academic pricing as well as evaluation licenses. Outside of LW you have at least (in no particular order) SBCL, CLISP, ClozureCL, ABCL, ECL, which are all at least open source, some under GPL and most of them are pretty fine products too. So - as we both see - your problem is not actually in the 1200. Concerning OM: you can experience Open Music without the need to recompile it and THEN decide if the cost of the possibility to recompile it is of value FOR YOU greater then the price of LW. Again - this is not fault of LW or the authors of OM. It's just your decision AFTER you know how worth not just using or writing plugins for OM, but also changing OM itself is valuable to you. It's your choice and you are free to take it. If you say no - no one is insulted :) Cheers

by plam3ns 12y ago

uniclaude 12y ago

Your points are all good, but you seem to fail to understand the reason why gp posted this comment. When seeing the Open prefix in the name of some software or platform, people usually except free things, because they've been used to it. Calling LispWorks stupid might not have been the brightest move around, but the concern was somehow valid.

_delirium 12y ago
The current version is free in several senses, though not all at the same time. The sources to OpenMusic itself are libre (GPL), and the OpenMusic binaries made available for download are gratis (they are self-contained and don't require your own copy of LispWorks). But you do need a copy of LispWorks to build your own binaries. It's free software, but depends on a proprietary compiler. I believe the main LispWorks dependency is on the GUI toolkit. There have been some porting efforts to SBCL/GTK in the past, but afaik none have been completed.
- keithpeter 12y ago
  To summarise: I can download and use OpenMusic the source code of which is issued under the GPL. But to exercise my free software style rights to hack on OpenMusic and recompile the changed software I need to buy a licence for a closed commercial product. Have I got that right?
  - _delirium 12y ago
    Depends entirely on what kind of hacking you want to do. If you want to pull out parts that are portable Common Lisp and use those, you're free to do so. If you want to hack the code so the whole thing compiles on SBCL, you're free to do that too. Similar situation to free-software apps whose developer targets OSX: no legal barrier to using the code on Linux, but may take some work.
plam3ns 12y ago
Of course I might fail to understand the reason :) First - OM is licensed under GPL (see their website). While the word "open" in the context of GPL can be discutable depending on the view of the gp, that's not a fault of LispWorks. Second - if not the GPL has been the confusion in the gp, then - to run AND develop for OM no one needs a commercial license of LispWorks (the runtime/compiler/lister/editor are distributed with OM). A professional tool like LispWorks is needed only to recompile OM itself, which is so or so not a hurdle for the gp until he doesn't gain enough knowledge about and experience with OM AND Common Lisp. By the time he gets there, I'm sure - he will either decide that neither OM or Lisp are his things and then again the license is irrelevant - or he will decide to pursue that path in which case the costs for LW are a bargain in comparison to the value one gets. If not OM, but Lisp seems to be something for him at the end - even then he can choose from about a dozen different implementations with different licensing terms from GPL though Open Source up to licenses for tens of tausends per CPU per year. Third - "open" can be a bit ladden with "free", but it can mean also an "open architecture" or a "development of software open to the public" or whatever. Again - not reading what is written on the website of the OM creators doesn't do good to the gp. Last - if you or gp mean that one has to bite in every carrot with an engraved "free" on it is serious then... :) But I started with the idea to help the gp to look deeper before using strong language and less to continue bashing on soft reasoning. Peace and regards

kaoD 12y ago

Well, I was forced to use Windows+LispWorks in college and I found myself (and my classmates) shouting "stupid LipsWorks!" at it more than we should have. The GUI leaves a lot to be desired and it crashed on my face regularly, progress lost included. Exploratory programming was a real nightmare and I got into a workflow where I basically had to copy any progress into Notepad and paste it all back from the beginning when LW crashed. I don't remember the specifics of how and why it happened, because we avoided it like the plague from there on. If GP called it stupid he might have his own reasons to do so (even if he could've said it more politely). Dismissing his opinion because of how much effort someone has put into LW is not helpful. The man hours of work mean nothing because as a consumer I don't care how much work you've put into it, but only about the quality of the product which, based on my experience, is lacking. I hope you don't see an insult in my words, just sharing my experience. YMMV.

plam3ns 12y ago
In no case I see insult - I just still wonder - probably having English as by far not my first language leaves a lot to desire in the way I try to convince someone to open a book before moaning "stupid". "Well, I was forced to use Windows+LispWorks in college and I found myself (and my classmates) shouting "stupid LipsWorks!" at it more than we should have." - this is usually (at least in the context of LispWorks very unusual for years already (me personally have used it for about a decade in the last 14 years for production software) - I don't know in which decade you tried it, but at least in the 21-st century LispWorks has been pretty stable for the majority of it's users as far as I have heard, and some of them run trading platforms for example on it. Yes, the GUI has always been a weak point of the product, but to have a workflow as you describe points to errors outside of LispWorks - probably education, probably not having called a single time the support I have praised earlier etc. But the important part is not who would cry louder - you can gather the whole class and continue to shout "stupid LispWorks" - it's without value for all. "If GP called it stupid he might have his own reasons to do so (even if he could've said it more politely). Dismissing his opinion because of how much effort someone has put into LW is not helpful." - Well - his opinion is uninformed, uneducated and probably insulting. He seems to be pretty young and more loud than knowledgable, so it has been a chance to help. "The man hours of work mean nothing.." - Sure - it's just again unedecuated in that specific case. "..because as a consumer I don't care how much work you've put into it, but only about the quality of the product.." - I really don't know how a bunch of undergraduates can for so long not listen to their professor or to not call support and to torture themselfes with notepad and still long after finishing that school still not reflect about their experience and the right actions to take in comparison to just moaning. "...and still have which, based on my experience, is lacking..." - Sure, the GUI is and probably will be lacking in every Common Lisp implementation incl. LispWorks'. But if you have listened to your professor at that time, you would at least today know, that this has never been his main point of teaching with Common Lisp or that LispWorks is a tool for several companies running some important software without crashes. 10 years ago as well as today. Whatever - the discussion/argumentation evolves to a kindergarden. My point, I repeat, has been to sensibilize the GP to some need for learning before categorizing the work of others as "stupid commercial". Either I can animate you or the GP to learn more or I can't. That's all. It's your life, not mine. Cheers

moher 12y ago

Cheaply? You seriously think that 1200 EUR per user is cheap?

blue1 12y ago
I've seen this discussion around LW an incredible number of times. The problem seems to be exactly this one: LW may be a nice product (many experience lispers seem to think so) or not (as someone on this thread is arguing), but in all cases LW's price is seen as incredibly high for today's sensitivities, especially given that there are very fine Common Lisp compilers around that are free (although way less refined, in the GUI department especially). LW has chosen to follow this kind of 80's-like business model and it's certainly their right to do so. They certainly have their reasons. Although personally I doubt this road is future-proof (or even present-proof).
- moher 12y ago
  I like the JetBrains pricing model, separating companies and individual developers.
plam3ns 12y ago
This is very simple. Saying that a Ferarri or a good Swiss watch or building an oil rafinery is expensive, because one doesn't want or can't buy it, just for the sake of it, is without sense. Cost as an absolute number is often meaningless. It gets a meaning in terms of value it could or does provide. For example, where I live, a not big appartent costs about 1500 EUR per month to rent. Is that expensive? Sure - everythign above 0 is expensive. But for me the value provided that I have a roof over the head is greater then the absolute cost. Well, I have lived also in places where this price for a similar appartment is about 100 EUR. Is that cheap? No - in comparison to the local purchasing power - no. But again - the value for me has been more important. Do I like the pricing of let say Oracle? Why should I.. But I can generate more value for clients and/or me using Oracle while using it in comparison to waiting around and telling everyone, that Oracle is expensive. As far as I know even in the most broken economies of the world, software developers can provide value for customers which exceeds the 1200 EUR initial and later 300 EUR per year of maintenance. If they can't, the problem is usually not the price of LW, but unemployment or impossibility to find paying clients for all possible economic or personal reasons beyond the price of LW. If you read earlier posts - you would have known, that if you just want to learn about LW or Common Lisp in general - there are plenty of options - LW provides a "Personal Edition" with the price of 0, or academic pricing as well as evaluation licenses. Outside of LW you have at least (in no particular order) SBCL, CLISP, ClozureCL, ABCL, ECL, which are all at least open source, some under GPL and most of them are pretty fine products too. So - as we both see - your problem is not actually in the 1200. Concerning OM: you can experience Open Music without the need to recompile it and THEN decide if the cost of the possibility to recompile it is of value FOR YOU greater then the price of LW. Again - this is not fault of LW or the authors of OM. It's just your decision AFTER you know how worth not just using or writing plugins for OM, but also changing OM itself is valuable to you. It's your choice and you are free to take it. If you say no - no one is insulted :) Cheers