but why compare to Perl?  what is it that made Perl a "success" to make
  it worth comparing to?  why not look at MS-DOS?  there are literally
  millions of small utilities out there that _had_ to be created because
  the core system was so fantastically useless.  similarly, I think the
  Perl community _had_ to build a whole lot of "useful" stuff -- they had
  already decided to reinvent the wheel with parts from all other Unix
  wheels, so of course they'll need to do everything over again in their
  new syntax.  Perl is a "success" in this regard because people who want
  to use it have no choice.

  Common Lisp has a _lot_ of tools built in, and it isn't a reinvention of
  a wheel, so there's less need for this stuff to begin with.  I think
  that's a _good_ thing, actually.  Perl is also used for all sorts of
  stuff that Common Lisp is not, such as systems administration of wacky
  systems, parsing stupid log file formats, glueing together uncooperative
  software, etc.  none of this is the Common Lisp way.

  the question I ask people who ask me whether Common Lisp can do what Perl
  does, is: "do you use Perl for these taks because you want to or because
  you have to?"  very few admit to wanting to, and actually think Perl is
  good because it lets them do things they already think is useless and
  ugly fairly quickly.  so the followup question: "would you want to use a
  language in which you didn't have to do those tasks?" and the result is
  sometimes enlightenment on part of the Perl hacker.  not that this
  converts people or anything, but it tends to communicate my view that
  Perl is a cure that extends and prolongs the problem rather than fixing
  it.  "oh, but sometimes you can't fix it!", some Perl hackers exclaim,
  and that's probably right, so Perl has a place in the universe, after
  all, but that still doesn't mean one shouldn't try to fix them.

  e.g., instead of trying to live with the multitude of incompatible time
  formats in the Unix world (especially in logs), let's do something in
  Common Lisp that really deals with the situation.  I think ISO 8601 is a
  brilliant standard, despite its many abbreviated forms, so I have written
  a fairly extensive package that uses it as the basis of the input and
  output of time.  as long as the order year-month-day-hour-minute-second
  is maintained and all fields are numeric, this package can deal with it.
  (if you want something else, feel free to hack like Perl in the language
  of your choice.)  this is a package I have created for a client on my own
  time, so I can release it when I feel comfortable in its ability to deal
  with everything I need.  would you set up that central repository or
  categorized links page to where it's all at with brief discriptions in
  the meantime?

Choosing one commercial Lisp over another just to get my hands on a regexp (or
any other) package surely isn't what you are recommending.

Cheers
Sudhir

  I think I would have to answer pretty much what you answered in 2) above.
  free software isn't, and you have to treat it like any other licensed
  software to remain at liberty to do whatever you want yourself.

| 4)  Perhaps my reading of the GPL is incorrect, but the GPL doesn't
|     require you make your source code available to everyone.

  this is correct.  I don't have to make it available to anyone.

|     In my reading (IANAL), the last 9 words are key for the custom
|     developer.  I read this as saying that you only need to give source
|     and liberal licensing terms to the third parties to whom you
|     distributed the code.

  this is correct.

|     Thus, it appears you could write custom software modifying GPL'd
|     software and give it to the client.  It would then be up to _them_
|     and _you_ how  it's distributed.

  this is incorrect.  it is no longer up to the author of GPL'ed code how
  it is distributed once it leaves the author's domain.  that is the key.

|     If it needs to be kept secret, it will only be used within the
|     company.  Assumption: the company would enjoin employees from
|     releasing code to the outside world.

  it is not quite resolved whether this is possible under the GPL.

| Furthermore, I believe that most commercial developers could easily work
| effectively and profitably work within the the BSD and artistic licenses.

  I would agree with that.

  I have asked my lawyer to architect a license agreement that I can use on
  source code that I plan to release without giving people the opportunity
  to distribute changes to it or make money off of it without my explicit
  cooperation.  I also want to know who is redistributing it so I can make
  sure that changes propagate properly.  (I'm sure he'll be happy about the
  extra income, but it may turn out to cost too much to give something away
  under reasonable terms.)

  you really need to look up "fallacy" in a dictionary.  you appear to
  disagree (it is unclear precisely with what, though), but there is
  nothing inherently contradictory in the argument even if you don't feel
  like agreeing to it.

  the fallacy in your argument is that you have decided to assign blame
  before you know what harm was actually been done.  (yes, this _is_ an
  inherent flaw in your argument -- it's called "begging the question".)

| There is no option ...

  and why did you rule out "complain to vendor about missing functionality"?

  things just don't get better if you don't let the people who make them
  know what you would like them to be like.

| Choosing one commercial Lisp over another just to get my hands on a
| regexp (or any other) package surely isn't what you are recommending.

  where do you draw the line?  when _would_ you choose another commercial
  Common Lisp implementation?  I'd say you have a serious attitude problem
  in that you accept without protest that some product is the way it is.
  it's that attitude that let Bill Gates defraud the entire globe.  with
  just a little less complacent customers and just a little more awareness
  of actual customer needs, his scam would never have been possible.  not
  that I blame you personally for their criminal and immoral activities,
  but it's worth noting that by not getting your money's worth, _you_ are
  at fault for not upholding your end of the deal.

  sell me shitty software once, shame on you.
  sell me shitty software twice, shame on me.

cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) writes:

< Well, if I was to do that it would be at somehost.2xtreme.net/~cbarry/
< or however my ISP does it, but yes, I suppose at some point I could
< start work on such a thing, if there would be genuine interest. I
< think my ISP only gives me 50MB of space or so, so there is not much
< possibility of local source mirroring, which I think would be best.

That sounds really neat. (I would have replyied via e-mail but it
doesn't seem to be working for me.)

% * trash...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper")
% | On 16 Dec 1998 05:21:52 +0000, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> claimed or
% | asked:
% |
% | % * trash...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper")
% | % | I'm confused.  Didn't you just flame free software a few posts back?
% | % | Or did you just flame the idea that all software must be free?
% | %
% | %   I did neither.  pay attention.
% |
% | I thought I was paying attention.  Perhaps you weren't being clear?
%
%   excuse me?  you're presenting some horribly contorted confusions as a
%   means of telling _me_ I'm not being clear?  really, now.

Oh how silly of me!  If you talk with your mouth full, I should have
no difficulty understanding you.

Hmmm.  This is rather a late response.  I wonder if I should even be
posting it, as meaningless as it is?  I'll leave that to the
philosophers.

--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.3a)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.

  it's interesting to notice that you aren't even able to recognize that
  the two choices you gave me are fantastically hostile and don't even
  recognize when you're being slapped for it.  merry christmas.