[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: common lisp vs elisp.

From: Alexandre Garreau
Subject: Re: common lisp vs elisp.
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 14:28:28 +0200

Le mardi 6 juillet 2021, 03:53:47 CEST Emanuel Berg via Users list for the 
GNU Emacs text editor a écrit :
> >> I want to make a 2D game tho, that's why I tried to get
> >> SLIME and SBCL going, maybe one could do SDL2 with that and
> >> have some sprites bounce off the ceiling...
> > 
> > I don't agree to discussions of proprietary software on GNU
> > mailing lists unless there is intention or project to make
> > free software out of it.
> What's proprietary, GOOL? Yes, Game Oriented Object Lisp
> (GOOL) is proprietary [1]

So maybe it should be avoided on emacs ML?

Or maybe the fact it’s no longer used, not publicly downloadable and 
usable and buyable, etc. and its advertisement wouldn’t lead to its use, 
makes it okay? at least for historical reasons/discussion?

I don’t know.  But usually it is asked not to make advertisement to 
proprietary software because it would promote its use.

> What does it mean that the dialect is made for writing games?
> You have to have that in _the actual language_ ? :O

What do you mean?

> Hm, also, what does it mean exactly when a *language* is
> proprietary? Offer support, write a book? Not anyone can write
> a compiler and/or other tools legally? Or not anyone can take
> parts of the language to another language s/he is working on?
> (Heh, were a lot of programming languages developed by women,
> I wonder...)

It means it has no free-software implementations.  Java was a proprietary 
language once, it is not anymore:

Same for swift.  Objective-C would have been, without gcc’s strong strong 
copyleft (which, I hope, will stay, just as strong :/)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]