Re: LLVM--Low Level Virtual Machine--and Ada

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

> On 2007-07-24, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:

> |>                                                                                |
> |> You should pay RR Software for a source code license to obtain that            |
> |> information.                                                                   |
> |                                                                                 |
> | You speaking for RR software? AFAIR, Randy has been very forward and            |
> | frank in the past to discuss compiler implementation (many thanks to            |
> | him: I usually learn something from his posts). How do I have to                |
> | understand the "should" in this sentence then?                                  |
> |                                                                                 |
> |  - It's a moral obligation.                                                     |
> |                                                                                 |
> |  - Randy has changed the rules: Thunks (as opposed to other details)            |
> |    are only being disclosed against money.                                      |
> |                                                                                 |
> |  - ..."                                                                         |
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> I do not work for RR Software. As in the past, RR Software has a
> pricelist including listing money in exchange for an implementation's
> source code (
> WWW.RRSoftware.com/html/companyinf/prices.htm

And that relates to Duncan's question how?

> ). Randy has been and continues to be very informative even when not

Exactly. But as I understood it, Duncan was only interested in knowing
how compilers work (and in the thunk vs. trampolines trade
off). Suggesting that he buys the source (which after all contains no
essay on the conceptual issues involved) strikes me as somewhat
surreal. Like suggesting to someone who asks how car gear boxes work,
to buy plans of a specific car: It might enable one to build the same
car, but won't help to understand the principles of gear box
construction.

> charging money for such help. You may wish to look at the rather

Why would I wish? For what?

> detailed news:f85jbd$mgj$1@jacob-sparre.dk and the subsequent posts
> in that subthread, which though detailed are still not as thorough
> an answer as the source code, which quite rightly costs money.

(Which nobody ever doubted: Only that was not the topic; Nobody in
this thread asked for the source code and certainly not for free. So
why do you write "rightly" as if anybody tried to deny RR sofware the
right?)

Not to be unthankful: But if Randy thought he's getting exploited here
at c.l.a., I think he'd either fall silent or raise the topic of
consultation against payment himself. Frankly, I'm appalled how you
insuate that 

 - someone is trying to rip Randy off.
 - that it should be normal that you pay for answers in usenet.

Regarding the latter, I thought (up to now) that Usenet is a free and
public forum -- not a platform to sell consulting
services. Participation is voluntary. If one doesn't want to answer
questions, there is a simple solution: Just say no or nothing. Or
don't write to newsgroups because it doesn't figure in your corporate
planning and doesn't bring money (like a well known compiler vendor
doesn't do it any more).

Regards -- Markus