Re: bytecode unification for scripting languages

[Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu>]

> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 02:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>
>
> > Well, PLT scheme is open source, as are perl, python, ruby, squeak, Linux,
> > the Gimp, Gnome, FreeBSD, etc. etc. and I think there has been a
> > considerable amount of innovation there.  
> 
> I'll withhold my opinion on the amount of innovation in many of those
> projects.  Your comment on PLT Scheme is rather misleading.  While
> several people do very helpfully contribute bug reports and patches,
> the ratio of development done globally as opposed to in a small number
> of centers with high communication is virtually zero.  If PLT Scheme
> were to come with a totally different license, it might affect our
> user base, but I doubt it would affect the "innovation".  That
> innovation came not from a Open Source bazaar but from motivated grad
> students working for a terrific advisor.  I think simply labeling it
> an "Open Source" project, and pointing to it as an example of
> innovation, is extremely misleading.
> 
> Shriram
> 

There is a terminology issue here.  PLT scheme is open source, but it does
not use the "bazaar style" model of development.  For that matter, neither
do most of the GNU projects.  What you appear to be saying is that the
bazaar development model (which is most closely associated with the Open
Source "movement", owing to Eric Raymond's writings), is not necessarily
more innovative than a "cathedral model" which characterizes PLT scheme and
many other projects which happen to be open source, and here I'd have to
agree.

Mike