Talk:Comparison of parser generators
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Old Discussion
This discussion page needs to be cleaned up, the mentioned issues were resolved!--Hyperyl 13:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article Content
Let's decide on what information should be in the article - if a description the different columns is needed and if the two charts should be combined.--DevinCook 13:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, please integrate an improved version of the old descriptions. But keep the current table, it was a lot of work to edit it!--Hyperyl 13:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure it took a ton of time to edit it! I do think that the license columns need to state Open Source/Freeware/etc... Only a few programmers know the details of each license on quick inspection. Also, the term "free software" - to spite it origins in advocacy of ownerless code - is not a good term anymore. It, nowadays, just refers to the "open source + public domain". I admit that that's not good for the movement, but its the reality of the art. --DevinCook 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Free Software licenses use copyright to protect the software thus they are not public domain. Open Source and Free Software requirements are the same. The code is not ownerless Open Source is just a marketing term. Please inform yourself! Have a look at the GNU philosophy pages!--Hyperyl 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with the terminology. Free software is more a philosophy nowadays rather than than an actual licensing term. The open source community worries about the implementation of source available software while the Free Software community is more concerned with ethical issues. Open source has been extremely successful - in particular Linux. To use an old Gnu quote: "For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, 'Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution." . Whether one is a Stallman-ist or a Torvalds-ist is the big question. For the most part, Torvalds has prevailed and "free software" is basically seen as an absolute form of "open source". --DevinCook 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I am a Stallman-ist. There is a big difference between us: You write proprietary software and I reject it. So there will be no consensus between us, because you prefer restriction and try to subjugate the users and I prefer freedom and try to protect the users.
- But have a look at:
- --Hyperyl 15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am very familiar with the terminology. Free software is more a philosophy nowadays rather than than an actual licensing term. The open source community worries about the implementation of source available software while the Free Software community is more concerned with ethical issues. Open source has been extremely successful - in particular Linux. To use an old Gnu quote: "For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, 'Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution." . Whether one is a Stallman-ist or a Torvalds-ist is the big question. For the most part, Torvalds has prevailed and "free software" is basically seen as an absolute form of "open source". --DevinCook 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Free Software licenses use copyright to protect the software thus they are not public domain. Open Source and Free Software requirements are the same. The code is not ownerless Open Source is just a marketing term. Please inform yourself! Have a look at the GNU philosophy pages!--Hyperyl 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure it took a ton of time to edit it! I do think that the license columns need to state Open Source/Freeware/etc... Only a few programmers know the details of each license on quick inspection. Also, the term "free software" - to spite it origins in advocacy of ownerless code - is not a good term anymore. It, nowadays, just refers to the "open source + public domain". I admit that that's not good for the movement, but its the reality of the art. --DevinCook 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freeware vs. Free Software
I suggest that we keep the term "freeware" to describe the software available without cost. "Free software" is, for the most part, synonymous with "open source" - which is a logical subset of freeware.
Not all the software listed is open source. --DevinCook 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thus it is Proprietary Software and should be included in the appropriate section. Open Source is a marketing term with a different intention than Free Software. Open Source focuses on technical aspects and Free Software on philosophical problems and thus represents philosophical values. I think these values are far more important than technical aspects.
- Additionally Freeware is gratis Proprietary Software. Thus it is not Free Software (Open Source Software). Thus Free Software programmes cannot be Freeware, because they respect our freedom instead of restricting us.
- If a programme is proprietary and generates source code that is licensed under Free Software License, it should be listed in the Proprietary Software section, because it still restricts the us and does not respect our freedom.
- Commercial means charging money for the programme or a service related to the programme. Proprietary and Free Software can be commercial, therefore the headline makes no sense.
- I reverted your revisions due to the reasons mentioned above. Please inform yourself about the things you are writing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperyl (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- hmm - that sort of remark belongs on slashdot, not in a neutral, informative context. Tedickey 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Best to dispense with the labels and simply cite what license applies. That's neutral, and will only offend the people who want to claim that other people belong to their group Tedickey 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes this is a good solution!--Hyperyl 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- The parser generators were originally listed in one chart. I broke it into too to allow developers to see which ones were commercial and those available for free. As the revision stands now, it isn't that helpful for users. GOLD is not commerical. In fact, most of the items listed as "free software" are not what is implied by "free software". One possible solution is to once-again combine the two tables into one.--DevinCook 07:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I made some changes that should provide a good compromise.--DevinCook 07:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your argumentation makes no sense: Free Software is software that respects the user's freedom, all the listed programmes do and therefore are Free Software. If you want to filter commercial software (software that is not gratis), you could simply sort by license or add a price field. The section division you did makes no sense at all you put Proprietary and Free Software into one section. This is unethical. Please merge the list as it has been democratically (based on consensus) decided. I think this is a good compromise (like in nearly all other software lists). Everyone will be happy. Maybe you could put the Proprietary programmes at the end of the list, so it is clearly distinguishable from Free Software. But this is of course optional. I would be also happy with a alphabetically sorted list.--Hyperyl 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Free software is a logical subset of open source software. The section is designed to list software titles that the user can use without cost. Sadly, the terminology that we all use is a tad of a nightmare - and the cause of this debate. "Free software" is free, but not all free software titles are "free software". They main difference between "free software" and "freeware" is whether the source is open. By definition, "freeware" is proprietary. However, the divisions were based on commercial vs. free rather than source code availability.--DevinCook 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Devin, this is my last attempt to explain to you what Free Software is. By definition Free Software and Open Source Software are the same. Their definitions describe the four essential freedoms. Open Source is a marketing term that was coined because business people confused Free Software with Open Source. Thus Free Software is not a subset of Open Source - it is equal to it. You shouldn't divide software in to cost categories. This is useless. A gratis copy of a Proprietary programme is still unethical and useless (because you are not free and can not properly use (in terms of usage, education, collaboration and development) the software. Freeware is gratis Proprietary Software and Free Software is not required to be gratis. Freedom is the difference and the source code and attributed rights are a requirement for this freedom. You shouldn't define free as gratis. It is free as in Freedom not as in price. Free Software licenses never make any requirements about price. Their purpose is freedom which is much more valuable than money. If you still think money is a more important than freedom, I cannot help you, because you like to be a slave, you like to be subjugated. So please correct your mistakes!--Hyperyl 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Free software is a logical subset of open source software. The section is designed to list software titles that the user can use without cost. Sadly, the terminology that we all use is a tad of a nightmare - and the cause of this debate. "Free software" is free, but not all free software titles are "free software". They main difference between "free software" and "freeware" is whether the source is open. By definition, "freeware" is proprietary. However, the divisions were based on commercial vs. free rather than source code availability.--DevinCook 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your argumentation makes no sense: Free Software is software that respects the user's freedom, all the listed programmes do and therefore are Free Software. If you want to filter commercial software (software that is not gratis), you could simply sort by license or add a price field. The section division you did makes no sense at all you put Proprietary and Free Software into one section. This is unethical. Please merge the list as it has been democratically (based on consensus) decided. I think this is a good compromise (like in nearly all other software lists). Everyone will be happy. Maybe you could put the Proprietary programmes at the end of the list, so it is clearly distinguishable from Free Software. But this is of course optional. I would be also happy with a alphabetically sorted list.--Hyperyl 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I made some changes that should provide a good compromise.--DevinCook 07:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The parser generators were originally listed in one chart. I broke it into too to allow developers to see which ones were commercial and those available for free. As the revision stands now, it isn't that helpful for users. GOLD is not commerical. In fact, most of the items listed as "free software" are not what is implied by "free software". One possible solution is to once-again combine the two tables into one.--DevinCook 07:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- By the way - why do you act as if you're an authority on the matter? Tedickey 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definitions
Q: How is here the Definition of Grammar/code: Mixed or Separated. Separated from Code (without Code inside) or as independent File? 129.69.189.32 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation
This chart needs much more explanation. I.e. adding wiki-links to LALR, etc, what does "sepperated" and "mixed" mean (per above), etc, etc, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.70.210.188 (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Misleading article title
Hi, I propose to change the title of this article to List of Parser Generators. This article is about parser generators and not about parsers, isn't it?eboy 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent point. Originally, the article was titled "List of Compiler-Compilers", however, many items on the list are not compiler-compilers, including my project. I do agree that changing the title to "List of Parser Generators" or perhaps "List of Parser Development Software", would be useful. What is everyone's thoughts on the issue? --DevinCook 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I like "List of Parser Generators" best. // Sping 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Column with external link
In list are generators having Wiki page (ANTLR), having extenral link (ACCENT) and no having Wiki and external link (Grammatica). My proposal is new column with extenral link; this givs advantages:
- direct go to generator home page, irrespective if generator has Wiki page or not
- instantly can be seen (by color) if generator has Wiki page or not
--Borneq 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
