Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30077 > unrolled thread
| Started by | roger.levy@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-03 21:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-14 07:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) roger.levy@gmail.com - 2014-05-03 21:19 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-03 22:22 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 08:24 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:44 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 14:46 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 09:21 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:28 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:38 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:53 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:36 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 23:27 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:39 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:44 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-05 07:35 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 21:51 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 09:49 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 22:55 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 01:21 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:07 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 07:12 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 07:15 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-05-07 09:28 -0500
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 09:23 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 09:56 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 09:57 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 10:02 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 10:08 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 12:03 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-07 08:16 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 11:33 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:32 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 01:50 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-08 10:24 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 09:05 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 09:00 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 12:09 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-08 20:11 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-09 01:22 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 17:08 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 11:24 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 15:25 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-09 01:30 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 08:42 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 15:30 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 14:11 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 16:26 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 14:37 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 21:17 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-10 10:45 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 14:28 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-10 11:41 -1000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 14:47 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 03:08 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 14:44 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-07 20:18 +0100
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:34 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-09 15:55 +0100
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:22 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-09 22:13 +0100
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 15:15 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-10 03:09 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) mhx@iae.nl - 2014-05-09 23:06 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-10 09:01 +0100
Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 09:02 +0000
Re: Parameter passing when calling C stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-10 14:40 +0000
Re: Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 15:26 +0000
Re: Parameter passing when calling C stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-11 09:46 +0000
Re: Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-11 14:57 +0000
Re: Parameter passing when calling C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-11 20:37 +0200
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 04:03 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Zbigniew <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2014-05-07 16:19 +0000
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 11:49 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2014-05-12 18:34 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 06:40 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 23:55 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 01:39 -0700
Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 07:08 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 11:24 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <k8WdnQoCYd2Va_bOnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30199 |
On 5/8/2014 9:09 AM, Roger Levy wrote: > >> There should be a clear statement in the manual about what words >> >> can/cannot be exposed to users. I haven't looked in a while, but as I >> >> recall interpreting text is fine, and it's ok for your program to >> >> compile options and features, but : etc. shouldn't be exposed to the >> >> users (which can be avoided with sealed vocabularies). >> > > You know, restricting : and other defining words seems extreme. That gives up an enormous advantage in Forth. > > I think the only restrictions should be the metacompiler, assembler, and PROGRAM. Especially if the wordset exposed to "scripters" was restricted to a specific domain. For instance no write-to-filesystem words and no Win32API access. Letting users write their own scripts without having to write a new interpreter should be allowed. > The question is, what is the purpose of the system? The normal view is that the purpose of a Forth system, like other languages and compilers, is to make a *program* which will be distributed to end users who regard this program as a "device" which does whatever it's intended to do (play a game, run an instrument, etc.). End users are not buying a language or programming system, and don't want or need to know anything about the language it's written in. If, in fact, what you want to sell is a programmable, extensible product, I'm sure FORTH, Inc. would be happy to negotiate a licensing agreement for that, but that is not the primary intent of the off-the-shelf product. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69e4caef-8f8e-403f-99d1-aa76c8897391@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30201 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:24:23 PM UTC-4, Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > On 5/8/2014 9:09 AM, Roger Levy wrote: > > > > > >> There should be a clear statement in the manual about what words > > >> > > >> can/cannot be exposed to users. I haven't looked in a while, but as I > > >> > > >> recall interpreting text is fine, and it's ok for your program to > > >> > > >> compile options and features, but : etc. shouldn't be exposed to the > > >> > > >> users (which can be avoided with sealed vocabularies). > > >> > > > > > > You know, restricting : and other defining words seems extreme. That gives up an enormous advantage in Forth. > > > > > > I think the only restrictions should be the metacompiler, assembler, and PROGRAM. Especially if the wordset exposed to "scripters" was restricted to a specific domain. For instance no write-to-filesystem words and no Win32API access. Letting users write their own scripts without having to write a new interpreter should be allowed. > > > > > > > The question is, what is the purpose of the system? The normal view is > > that the purpose of a Forth system, like other languages and compilers, > > is to make a *program* which will be distributed to end users who regard > > this program as a "device" which does whatever it's intended to do > > (play a game, run an instrument, etc.). End users are not buying a > > language or programming system, and don't want or need to know anything > > about the language it's written in. > > > > If, in fact, what you want to sell is a programmable, extensible > > product, I'm sure FORTH, Inc. would be happy to negotiate a licensing > > agreement for that, but that is not the primary intent of the > > off-the-shelf product. you might be familiar with "modding". this is getting more and more popular in the game community. i.e. modifying the behavior of a game, whether it's adding or changing characters or the logic of various elements of levels, or entire levels, cutscenes, stories, or anything. depending on the level of customizability. conventionally, an off-the-shelf, or dedicated scripting language will be used, like Lua - but Forth is already built into the executable so it would be stupid not to just use it. i'm fine with working out a royalty scheme since this would be a commercial project, so long as i could get a large amount of freedom. i might be in contact with you guys about this within the next few months. who's best to get in touch with for licensing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkh42g$mad$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30201 |
Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > The question is, what is the purpose of the system? The normal view is > that the purpose of a Forth system, like other languages and compilers, > is to make a *program* which will be distributed to end users who regard > this program as a "device" which does whatever it's intended to do > (play a game, run an instrument, etc.). End users are not buying a > language or programming system, and don't want or need to know anything > about the language it's written in. What about this level design language thing I mentioned in my reply to Stephen? The end user is buying a game, but one of the important aspects of game development is that you separate the game engine and the level description. In a Forth game, the level description is very likely Forth code plus image data. The level designer might be aware of the Forth code, and there are a number of interesting games out there where users can design their own level and even submit it to the community. Some games (like minecraft) have stuff inside that allows people to build some logic inside. They even implemented Forth inside minecraft: http://integratedredstone.wikispaces.com/RedPower+Control I think the original idea of having a language for programmers, and some sort of rat pushing a button on the end user side isn't true anymore (if it ever was). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May10.104240@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30209 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>I think the original idea of having a language for programmers, and some
>sort of rat pushing a button on the end user side isn't true anymore (if it
>ever was).
The separation between programmers and (non-programming) end users
exists in many settings, so it's no wonder that licenses of
proprietary software are designed for such settings.
That difference exists even in cases where the license is not making
the difference, and where the program author does not expect it.
E.g., Knuth expected that the users would make custom variants of TeX
for their own purposes, but that did not happen. Instead, they wrote
macro packages for TeX, and of these, LaTeX was the winner who took it
all; and there are various packages that build on top of LaTeX.
So for TeX we do have the separation, but it's more fine-grained:
There are relatively few who work on TeX (pretty much only porting and
such), some more who work on the LaTeX core, many more that work on
packages for LaTeX, and then there are the end users (many of whom
define their own commands and environments, but not all).
This kind of layering is also present in other areas, e.g., games with
addons and macro languages.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkl9kv$rv6$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30240 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>I think the original idea of having a language for programmers, and some >>sort of rat pushing a button on the end user side isn't true anymore (if >>it ever was). > > The separation between programmers and (non-programming) end users > exists in many settings, so it's no wonder that licenses of > proprietary software are designed for such settings. > > That difference exists even in cases where the license is not making > the difference, and where the program author does not expect it. > E.g., Knuth expected that the users would make custom variants of TeX > for their own purposes, but that did not happen. Instead, they wrote > macro packages for TeX, and of these, LaTeX was the winner who took it > all; and there are various packages that build on top of LaTeX. > > So for TeX we do have the separation, but it's more fine-grained: > There are relatively few who work on TeX (pretty much only porting and > such), some more who work on the LaTeX core, many more that work on > packages for LaTeX, and then there are the end users (many of whom > define their own commands and environments, but not all). > > This kind of layering is also present in other areas, e.g., games with > addons and macro languages. Yes, but part of this layering usually gets removed when you use Forth to write such a system. E.g. take TeX: If you wrote a typesetting system in Forth, you wouldn't implement the macro language from scratch. You would use Forth as macro language, with all the words you needed to write the typesetting system. Same with a game: the macro language would be Forth plus the words of the game engine. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May10.161142@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30248 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> So for TeX we do have the separation, but it's more fine-grained:
>> There are relatively few who work on TeX (pretty much only porting and
>> such), some more who work on the LaTeX core, many more that work on
>> packages for LaTeX, and then there are the end users (many of whom
>> define their own commands and environments, but not all).
>>
>> This kind of layering is also present in other areas, e.g., games with
>> addons and macro languages.
>
>Yes, but part of this layering usually gets removed when you use Forth to
>write such a system. E.g. take TeX: If you wrote a typesetting system in
>Forth, you wouldn't implement the macro language from scratch. You would
>use Forth as macro language, with all the words you needed to write the
>typesetting system. Same with a game: the macro language would be Forth
>plus the words of the game engine.
That's an implementation issue, but what I meant is that such systems
have these layers in the kinds of users. A great many "mere users",
fewer macro writers, even fewer addon/mod writers, and very few core
programmers. And I don't think that this would change if there was
just one programming language for macros, addons and core.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 16:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lklcvd$mdm$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30251 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>Anton Ertl wrote: >>> So for TeX we do have the separation, but it's more fine-grained: >>> There are relatively few who work on TeX (pretty much only porting and >>> such), some more who work on the LaTeX core, many more that work on >>> packages for LaTeX, and then there are the end users (many of whom >>> define their own commands and environments, but not all). >>> >>> This kind of layering is also present in other areas, e.g., games with >>> addons and macro languages. >> >>Yes, but part of this layering usually gets removed when you use Forth to >>write such a system. E.g. take TeX: If you wrote a typesetting system in >>Forth, you wouldn't implement the macro language from scratch. You would >>use Forth as macro language, with all the words you needed to write the >>typesetting system. Same with a game: the macro language would be Forth >>plus the words of the game engine. > > That's an implementation issue, but what I meant is that such systems > have these layers in the kinds of users. A great many "mere users", > fewer macro writers, even fewer addon/mod writers, and very few core > programmers. And I don't think that this would change if there was > just one programming language for macros, addons and core. Sure, that sort of layers wouldn't change. But the point is that when there's only one programming language for macros, addons, and core, the mere user will use that programming language. Not in the same way as the core programmer does, but he can access the compiler and interpreter. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May10.163714@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30253 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> That's an implementation issue, but what I meant is that such systems
>> have these layers in the kinds of users. A great many "mere users",
>> fewer macro writers, even fewer addon/mod writers, and very few core
>> programmers. And I don't think that this would change if there was
>> just one programming language for macros, addons and core.
>
>Sure, that sort of layers wouldn't change. But the point is that when
>there's only one programming language for macros, addons, and core, the mere
>user will use that programming language. Not in the same way as the core
>programmer does, but he can access the compiler and interpreter.
Yes, and the advantage of using the same language is that the entry
barrier into the next layer is lower.
Anyway, I think it is understandable that a proprietary Forth system
license is designed for the frequent two-layer case. And yes, it's
deplorable that such a license eliminates one advantage of Forth; of
course, one can negotiate a special license for the specific needs,
but there is also a barrier there.
The funny thing is that some people who wished that Gforth did not
have a copyleft (aka share-alike) license have suggested that more
permissive licensing should be used for turnkey programs that do not
give access to the compiler or somesuch; for some unfathomable reason
they assumed that we have a particular interest in supporting
proprietary software that locks the user out of the Forth system it is
based on.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 21:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lklu0t$b7a$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30258 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > The funny thing is that some people who wished that Gforth did not > have a copyleft (aka share-alike) license have suggested that more > permissive licensing should be used for turnkey programs that do not > give access to the compiler or somesuch; for some unfathomable reason > they assumed that we have a particular interest in supporting > proprietary software that locks the user out of the Forth system it is > based on. That sort of thinking is understandable from the point of view of those who want such a license: They are thinking of their software as proprietary stuff, and stuck in that way of thinking. They just want a cheap system to maximize their profit (though, of course, one particular guy didn't even want to make a profit...). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 10:45 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <M62dnYumQ7BkEvPOnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30240 |
On 5/9/14 10:42 PM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> I think the original idea of having a language for programmers, and some >> sort of rat pushing a button on the end user side isn't true anymore (if it >> ever was). > > The separation between programmers and (non-programming) end users > exists in many settings, so it's no wonder that licenses of > proprietary software are designed for such settings. When I think of all the software that I use, virtually none of it is intended to be "programmable" by users. The one exception is Excel, which allows some VB code (although I've never used that feature). TeX and relatives are another exception, but I don't use it. And virtually the entire range of microcontroller applications are for widgets that don't even have a user interface (though some have lights, buttons, etc.). That said, FORTH, Inc. does have a number of customers who are selling programmable applications under license. It's just a matter of identifying what capabilities are required in what circumstances. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e89c1cd-e3fc-4fd8-a5f8-55cab331d964@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30269 |
How can one claim an additional licence fee for what amounts to EVALUATE in a loop? I think I'm misunderstanding something here!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 11:41 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <nYqdnU5QI41lAfPOnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30272 |
On 5/10/14 11:28 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > How can one claim an additional licence fee for what amounts to EVALUATE in a loop? > > I think I'm misunderstanding something here! > Yes, I think you are. What is licensable is user access to a full programming environment including compiler, assembler, interactive development environment, debugging aids, libraries, documentation, etc. As Stephen has pointed out, the interpreter itself is often quite useful in applications. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0b7c0fa-e61a-4b93-8456-f4474fe70c03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30273 |
Ah. Okay I've got it. Yes that's a completely different matter. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2a39f85-f7e3-4df1-9fbf-fcd1da93750d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30201 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:24:23 PM UTC+2, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/8/2014 9:09 AM, Roger Levy wrote: > > The question is, what is the purpose of the system? The normal view is > that the purpose of a Forth system, like other languages and compilers, > is to make a *program* which will be distributed to end users who regard > this program as a "device" which does whatever it's intended to do > (play a game, run an instrument, etc.). End users are not buying a > language or programming system, and don't want or need to know anything > about the language it's written in. Actually this is a HUGE sale argument in video games. Gamers love to be able to mod the code, the biggest LUA community is made of gamers, imho :) Lua and Python are the two languages of choice for mods. Also, some AAA games engines are provided for free (with commercial licensing option) : - Source Engine - UDK - Cryengine ... -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99c8d1fa-ee08-467a-90e3-db8f0cb18f4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30199 |
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 20:09:56 UTC+1, Roger Levy wrote: > For instance no write-to-filesystem words and no Win32API access. Letting users write their own scripts without having to write a new interpreter should be allowed. Let them have blocks. Files are for panzies! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lke0td$tgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30155 |
on 07/05/2014 17:56:49, Roger Levy wrote: > >> >> > But how many Forth programmers would be in the market for something >> >> > like this? >> >> >> >> Surely not enough ;-). But I thought part of the idea was to get >> >> newbies interested in Forth. >> >> >> >> I guess it only has any hope if it could either 1) work with a free >> >> Forth like Gforth, or 2) work with the evaluation version of Swift >> >> (and you'd better check with forth.com before attempting that). >> >> Swiftforth is a great product from everything I hear, but I couldn't >> >> imagine spending hundreds of $$ on a copy just to play and modify a game >> >> when I wasn't getting paid for it. > > > There are 2 angles here. > > 1) Make the model "source distribution only". The eval version of > SwiftFor th is free and full featured minus turnkey export. > > 2) I know of a really impressive forth called iForth > http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/i4faq.html the license is incredibly > liberal. Pay ~$140 and use it for whatever the f uck you want. This is > ideal for tooling it into a complete game dev enviro nment (something > I've had an interest in for years and have abandoned sever al tries), > or simply as a game that can have modding scripts passed in. > Since it's Windows, why not Win32Forth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d46f6240-63f8-4dbc-86c2-5d45d4f28496@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30163 |
> Since it's Windows, why not Win32Forth? Reverse DLL parameter order, fewer IDE niceties and non-existent support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 15:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lkiq8m$o5f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30164 |
on 07/05/2014 20:34:22, Roger Levy wrote: >> Since it's Windows, why not Win32Forth? > > Reverse DLL parameter order, fewer IDE niceties and non-existent > support. > ANS, free, complete source, active user community, works well & long pedigree. There are tradeoffs in every tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55b7a408-2494-42fc-bb5b-63e42703879f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30216 |
> ANS, free, complete source, active user community, works well & long > > pedigree. There are tradeoffs in every tool. It wasn't meant to be a knock against it. I had to weigh my needs against what it provided.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 22:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lkjgej$uq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30217 |
on 09/05/2014 18:22:19, Roger Levy wrote: > >> ANS, free, complete source, active user community, works well & long >> >> pedigree. There are tradeoffs in every tool. > > It wasn't meant to be a knock against it. I had to weigh my needs > against what it provided. > I didn't take it as such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web