1) If your a proprietary software maker like Microsoft, then yes, you probable would have to pay a licensing fee. But software development is changing and IBM, Apple, Toshiba, etc are realizing that open source is the way to go.Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, the thing is that ABC would have to pay XYZ for that. I mean, we already have code libraries and APIs and such so that you don't have to "reinvent the wheel." Also, people often like to create things for themselves sometimes...to marvel at their own genius.
Although, it can be hard to integrate things from completely different codebases. For example, a game will have different structures for representing clients than will a chat program.
Microsoft and Modular Architecture. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOriginally posted by wuliheron
This has been microsoft's focus all along, and why their modular architecture and bells and whistles are so infamous for being unstable.
I don't see how Godel's incompleteness theorem applies. Also, it is certainly conceivable that a standardized language could be general enough to do any task.There will never be a standardized language, by virtue of Godel's incompleteness theorem, nor is it desireable - different languages evolve largely because they are the most suitable for the task at hand, and the abilities and prejudices of the programmers involved.
I suppose this is possible…. But, engineers will always need some from of language to construct from scratch with….Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Here's a thought you might want to respond on, maybe the whole programming thing will go away the way kerosene headlamps did in cars. Currently it's being outsourced to Bangladesh, and in the near future, automated programming - long foreseen - may finally arrive. Of course that's Vinge's singularity again!