Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#61

Post by gnufreex »

kprobst wrote: post #42
gnosis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether this "Promise" is actually worth much depends on much more than just the question of its legal legitimacy, as you'd have learned if you actually bothered to read the articles. But, as far as that particular issue is concerned, as the techrights article points out, "It may become legally binding ... if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/."

Yes well, I could have used the same argument against the GPL back in the day. And really, I don't need to read through an article by someone who declared the Mono project "dead" a few months ago because he couldn't find the SVN repository. Or spams Reddit endlessly. Not to mention the years of insults and ideological attacks on various FOSS people. In any case, you might want to look up the legal term estoppel .

Mono pushers keep repeating estoppel meme but nobody ever explained how estoppel would apply to Mono. Microsoft never promised anything more than ECMA spec. They made clear they are not giving anything more. Yet, we know that even basic bits of Mono overstep ECMA http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-m...

So please stop repeating estoppel meme, it is nonsense. Also, attacking all people who show the world truth about Mono shows you have no arguments. Reddit was spammed by Mono pushers who were impersonating other people.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#62

Post by nitrogen »

tzs wrote: post #37
berntb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee that a customer can use Mono for commercial applications, without a shake down from Microsoft?

IP in Mono falls into several categories. 1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft. 2. There is a lot of .NET stuff that Microsoft has released under the Apache 2 license, which includes a patent pledge. If any of this stuff is implemented in Mono, it is safe. 3. There is stuff in .NET that is n…

The #1 items covered by the Microsoft Community Promise could become problems if Microsoft transfers the related patents to someone other than Microsoft, who would presumably not be bound to uphold an agreement to which they were not a party. I would love to be wrong about this, though.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#63

Post by gnufreex »

acangiano wrote: post #2

> I work in C# (worst language EVER!) You lose all credibility right there. C# is far from the worst language ever, and a pretty decent one among mainstream object oriented languages.

He loses all credibility because he don't like you religio.. I mean language? Strange metrics of credibility. I disagree with you, therefore you have no credibility.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#64

Post by gnufreex »

tzs wrote: post #37
berntb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee that a customer can use Mono for commercial applications, without a shake down from Microsoft?

IP in Mono falls into several categories. 1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft. 2. There is a lot of .NET stuff that Microsoft has released under the Apache 2 license, which includes a patent pledge. If any of this stuff is implemented in Mono, it is safe. 3. There is stuff in .NET that is n…

>1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft.

And that is only thing that is remotely safe. All other is murky. But unfortunately, even that can be unsafe if Microsoft sell patents to CPTN (like they did with Novell patents) and let them sue even for ECMA parts.

Moreover, ECMA parts are unusable on their own. Eevery single mono app also depends on non-ECMA parts and Mono is always shipped with non-ECMA parts: http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/on-mono-packaging/

As for Estoppel, they didn't promise anything for non-ECMA. It doesn't work the way you think it works. In fact, they even promised to sue:

"If someone implemented a product that conforms to the specification, we believe we have a patent or one pending that’s essential to implementing the specification."

or

"The .NET framework contains the latest developer platform for the future, and it must be licensed like Windows. Subsets have gone about as far as they should go in the standards bodies, but we need a compact subset for phones and TVs. It was noted that we have to be careful because once the horses are out, they are out forever. At the right royalty, we can have discussions around technology beyond this."

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#65

Post by kprobst »

gnufreex wrote: post #61
kprobst wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes well, I could have used the same argument against the GPL back in the day. And really, I don't need to read through an article by someone who declared the Mono project "dead" a few months ago because he couldn't find the SVN repository. Or spams Reddit endlessly. Not to mention the years of insults and ideological attacks on various FOSS people. In any case, you might want to look up the legal term estoppel .

Mono pushers keep repeating estoppel meme but nobody ever explained how estoppel would apply to Mono. Microsoft never promised anything more than ECMA spec. They made clear they are not giving anything more. Yet, we know that even basic bits of Mono overstep ECMA http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-m... So please stop repeating estoppel meme, it is nonsense. Also, attacking all people who show…

I did a search on techrights.org of your username and it seems you're one of the regulars there. I guess paranoia pays off sometimes. The "gnosis" account that posted on this same thread is a, um, friend of yours, I take it?

In any case, sorry, but I'm not going to argue this issue with the likes of you. You may have a point somewhere, perhaps, but anyone associated with that blog has about as much credibility vis-a-vis Mono as Rush Limbaugh does when he talks about... well, anything. I bid you adieu sir. Good luck.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#66

Post by wisty »

cookiecaper wrote: post #51
tzs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP in Mono falls into several categories. 1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft. 2. There is a lot of .NET stuff that Microsoft has released under the Apache 2 license, which includes a patent pledge. If any of this stuff is implemented in Mono, it is safe. 3. There is stuff in .NET that is n…

My understanding is that Microsoft hired the IronPython developer full-time for a period of years. I think that it's only natural that MS would target Mono if they felt it was a threat. Right now it is in their interest to support Mono because it introduces more people to C# and MS feels that this is good for the long-term health of their platforms. They are also able to iterate quickly enough that Mono (and Moonligh…

Linux is a big threat, given how they have destroyed a lot of Windows Server's market. And I'm pretty sure Microsoft has a few patents on operating systems, that they could sting Linux for.

However, there are too many developers who would riot (i.e. advise their boss not to go MS) if MS started playing too dirty.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#67

Post by siika2000 »

ddkrone wrote: post #26
DougBTX wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me type inference changes the picture, since it reduces the duplication you see throughout Java-style statically typed code, but doesn't give up all the benefits.

The only benefit I'm aware of is slightly faster code and even then the dynamic version is almost always more readable and easier to maintain and refactor. The ideal would be a dynamic language with optional static typing but I have yet to see a language like that.

> The ideal would be a dynamic language with optional static typing but I have yet to see a language like that.

That would be Common Lisp.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#68

Post by enjo »

I remember running into this early on at Quickoffice. I was tasked with essentially re-writing the entire application stack as the existing code was in pretty rough shape.

C++ was mandated by the platform, but I spent a lot of time getting the STL and Boost up and running. The entire thing relied heavily on templates, including some of the more advanced meta-programming techniques. In each case the 'cleverness' was warranted as it greatly reduced the complexity and redundancy of the code.

My boss at the time raised concerns over how maintainable this all was. How we're junior programmers going to be able to work on it? Being all of 22 I naively responded "well, lets just hire people who can handle it."

Interestingly, that's exactly what we did. We were much more thorough in our hiring process precisely because we needed folks who could rise to the level of the code we had written.

It seems to me that people (and companies) tend to rise to the level of the expectations that you set. In this case, making the decision to use LISP means that you're consciously making the decision to hire the caliber of talent that can use lisp. That may be a good thing (it was in the case above for sure).

I suppose it really comes down to making sure that the complexity of the application warrants the use of the more advanced abstraction. A simple web-site for someone selling tractors might warrant a different ("easier") tool than something inherently more complex.

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#69

Post by arnoooooo »

This reminds me of PG's essay on Java, in which he wrote "Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.".

Ben says that smart people should also work with these languages because non-smart people might have to work with the code. I think that is actually what happens a lot in the industry. Smart people who know Lisp, Ruby, Python, etc. still end up coding in Java because that's the language everybody else knows.

What I don't like about this is that it's basically saying that people can't become good at programming. It's accepting that the majority of professional developpers can't learn to use languages like Lisp correctly or to understand a Lisp program that uses powerful abstractions.

Maybe the ones who really can't are not in the right business ?

Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp

#70

Post by MortenK »

Helianthus16 wrote: post #47
robinduckett wrote: post #6

Asked me to sign in to Google Groups. Closed tab.

I do not understand why giving feedback about the usability of the link deserves downvotes. I didn't even understand what had happened when I was suddenly at a google log-in, shrugged, and closed the tab.

Funny thing is, if it were a Facebook login wall, tens of upvotes would have ensued.
Post reply on HN