Author: Will Singleton
Date: 22:24:40 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 1999 at 00:14:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 29, 1999 at 23:55:32, Will Singleton wrote: >[snip] >>Dann, >> >>I understand your point, and it is well taken. But, as I see it, you ignore the >>difference between publishing source code and publishing ideas. >> >>You illustrate the elementary example of the novice programmer and bubble-sort. >>Notwithstanding the recent crafty bubble-sort thread, you oversimplify; your >>example doesn't address the issue. That is, the ideas and methods of sorting >>can be explained through pseudo-code and code-fragments. The actual >>implementation is left to the programmer. >> >>To publish a complete system, working in all respects, does not add more to the >>general pool of knowledge than does publishing an article explaining the issues. >> In fact, it does less, and furthermore, has the obvious drawbacks. >> >>This seems clear to me, much like the concept that people should work for a >>living rather than receiving welfare. Do you not agree? >On the one hand: >I do not agree. I don't think it is bad to publish the code. Is GCC bad? Is >Linux bad? Is any other open source project bad because the source was shown? >What about ACE? What about SFL? What about Snippets? All of these are >tremendously useful resources and some of them accomplish incredibly useful >tasks. Furthermore, ACE and SFL are incredibly well documented. You can pick >up the documentation and start using the tools right away. And if something >goes wrong you can trace the source. Just about ideal as far as I can see. >Plus they can be used free of charge. > >On the other hand: >I respect any programmer's right to keep their work to themselves. That >includes not showing the code. That includes not defining or publishing the >algorithms. That includes anything else they choose to show or withhold from >their cherished labors. I believe that their own effort belongs to them to do >with as they please. > >On the other other hand: >Without TSCP, Phalanx, and Crafty I would probably never even have thought about >trying to write a chess program. I'm slow and methodical about things like that >and I expect it will be years before I have something good to show for it. But >I expect to innovate and I expect to learn and I expect to teach. And anything >I do will be open source (well, once I'm not embarrassed of it, that is). > >I'm from Missouri. You gots ta show me. Well, you don't really have to but it >saves a bunch of time. >;-) Perhaps there is a distinction between open source for end-user apps and open source for tools. Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that chess is a game, that there is direct combat between programs, with immediate measurable results. But I find it unusual that you would not have considered writing a chess program without a road map, or indeed a blueprint together with a finished product. I thought of it as soon as the Apple 2 came out, and it became generally feasible for the average joe. Where is the adventure in tweaking someone else's years of hard work? How can you find satisfaction in that? TSCP I can understand. But when you get into advanced programs, you are merely appropriating someone else's vision, you are getting something for nothing. Let me put it this way: when you publish your chess program, will you include the fact that it is really Phalanx with a couple of mods? Or perhaps a mixture of Crafty and Phalanx? Because it seems that is your argument. If so, and you improve on those programs, I applaud you. But will you give the proper credit? Will
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.