Standard Pascal ISO 7185:1990 and Extended Pascal ISO/IEC 10206:1991

[440bx]

The point is not about opinion ....

Just in case you haven't noticed it before, it is quite common for someone who doesn't like the facts to re-brand them as "opinion".  For some, the Pythagorean theorem is just an opinion from a guy named Pythagoras.

[guest64953]

The point is not about opinion ....

Just in case you haven't noticed it before, it is quite common for someone who doesn't like the facts to re-brand them as "opinion".  For some, the Pythagorean theorem is just an opinion from a guy named Pythagoras.

Except this time you are plain wrong and your example is not an exact synonym. Yes, the fact is most of the so called opensource were not built by volunteers but by paid developers. You could check the Linux source tree and you will find out it's often A from Redhat has commit, B from Novell has commit... but not a no-name developer has commit... Even Linus himself is employed by Redhat 

[440bx]

Except this time you are plain wrong...

First, presuming that is the case, it wouldn't be the first time and regrettably it won't be the last either.  IOW, that statement isn't particularly revealing nor informative.

Yes, the fact is most of the so called opensource were not built by volunteers but by paid developers. You could check the Linux source tree and you will find out it's often A from Redhat has commit, B from Novell has commit... but not a no-name developer has commit... Even Linus himself is employed by Redhat 

I don't know for a fact that the "so called opensource" as you call it was "built" by paid developers but, I do know for a fact that, all programmers, like everyone else have to make a living which means they are getting paid to perform some work.  Your underlying premise that because programmers are being paid to do something means that most open source software is from developers paid to produce it is simply unfounded and extremely likely to be _false_.  As a counter example to your statement, far from unique, is the work of Richard Stallman.  No one paid Stallman to start the movement which is essentially the seed of today's open source.

Other examples that are particularly appropriate are Lazarus and FPC.  While it may be the case that a few developers are paid to contribute to them, the majority of the contributions come from programmers who invest part of their free time in contributing to the projects.  This forum is filled with the contributions of many programmers in the form of software and free support that is the result of their passion for programming and the satisfaction they derive from helping others, not from being paid to do so.

Your assertion that the fact is most of the so called opensource were not built by volunteers but by paid developers is unfounded and to a great extent _false_.

[guest64953]

Except this time you are plain wrong...

First, presuming that is the case, it wouldn't be the first time and regrettably it won't be the last either.  IOW, that statement isn't particularly revealing nor informative.

Yes, the fact is most of the so called opensource were not built by volunteers but by paid developers. You could check the Linux source tree and you will find out it's often A from Redhat has commit, B from Novell has commit... but not a no-name developer has commit... Even Linus himself is employed by Redhat 

I don't know for a fact that the "so called opensource" as you call it was "built" by paid developers but, I do know for a fact that, all programmers, like everyone else have to make a living which means they are getting paid to perform some work.  Your underlying premise that because programmers are being paid to do something means that most open source software is from developers paid to produce it is simply unfounded and extremely likely to be _false_.  As a counter example to your statement, far from unique, is the work of Richard Stallman.  No one paid Stallman to start the movement which is essentially the seed of today's open source.

Other examples that are particularly appropriate are Lazarus and FPC.  While it may be the case that a few developers are paid to contribute to them, the majority of the contributions come from programmers who invest part of their free time in contributing to the projects.  This forum is filled with the contributions of many programmers in the form of software and free support that is the result of their passion for programming and the satisfaction they derive from helping others, not from being paid to do so.

Your assertion that the fact is most of the so called opensource were not built by volunteers but by paid developers is unfounded and to a great extent _false_.

FPC + Lazarus can't be compared to the Linux kernel. With big open source projects or some very important ones, it's mostly paid developers contribute to them. I don't want to be rude or ungraceful, but I would say FPC + Lazarus is rather a hobbyist project. Yes, many people used it to develop paid software. But it's just that. FPC + Lazarus is not important enough, or not reached the important enough state for corporations to jump into and driven the development. Think about GCC. Doesn't it developed mostly by corporate? Because it's a very important project. It's a totally different story even though both GCC and FPC are compilers. The fact GCC is much much important because of the C language, the language of system development. Pascal is not that important as a language. You have to accept this. This is a fact.

p/s: Did you know Eclipse is from IBM and Java/Netbeans are from Sun/Oracle? They are all open source software!

[winni]

If Linus Torvalds is employee at Red Hat it is not okay.
If somebody is coding in his off time he is only a hobbiest.

What do you want except nagging?????

I give you a piece of a new kernel and you give me a piece of bread??

Winni

[Handoko]

@440bx, @giahung

It's a tie.

I've just done some search from the Internet and I found this:
https://dirkriehle.com/2013/08/22/paid-vs-volunteer-work-in-open-source/

... we find that about 50% of all open source software development has been paid work ...

So, it's a tie and you both win.

Volunteering doesn't mean cannot be paid. There was a time when I felt bored, had plenty of time and nothing to do. I volunteered an online job I found on the Internet. I helped them generated 3D images of their mobile banking bus' interior. I didn't think I would receive any money. But because they was happy with the result I done, they later sent me $100.

The equation is simple. If you are nice to others, others will do so to you. I spend some of my time helping newbies in the forum, some of them contacted me just to say thank you.

[440bx]

FPC + Lazarus can't be compared to the Linux kernel.

I didn't compare FPC + Lazarus with the Linux kernel but, since you mention the Linux kernel, the birth of Linux was not a paid project. TTBOMK, Linus Torvald created Linux on his own free time.  Posted a copy of it on usenet, other programmers found it interesting and contributed to it.  Eventually, after many _unpaid_ contributions, it became clear that it was probably worth a financial investment to turn it into a capable platform that could sustain a business model.

Also, as far as Linux is concerned, if the many GNU programs had not existed, it is unclear what the ultimate fate of Linus' efforts would have been.  It takes a lot of time to develop a capable compiler, linker, make, editor, etc, etc which are all required to make an O/S a usable piece of software.  All that software was, at least initially, unpaid.

With big open source projects or some very important ones, it's mostly paid developers contribute to them.

That might be true but, it happens only after they get big and, before that happens, a lot of people have contributed significantly to it. 

I don't want to be rude or ungraceful, but I would say FPC + Lazarus is rather a hobbyist project.

That might also be true but, the most likely reason is because the Pascal language is not very popular.  If Pascal were more popular and large corporations depended on it, it might not be a "hobbyist project". 

The point isn't that there aren't programmers being paid to develop open source software, the point is that, likely, the bulk of open source software is, at least initially, done by unpaid programmers.  If their project manages to gather enough attention then and, more often than not, only then, are programmers eventually paid to continue developing it.

Think about GCC. Doesn't it developed mostly by corporate? Because it's a very important project.

I don't know if currently most of the development in GCC is done by paid programmers or not but, TTBOMK, Richard Stallman, who wrote GCC, wasn't paid to write it.  That can be said of most, if not all, the initial suite of GNU software.

Pascal is not that important as a language. You have to accept this. This is a fact.

Not only it's a fact, it's a fairly obvious fact but, GCC was not born because someone paid for it to be developed.  Both are the result of an individual's interest in the language, Richard Stallman's in the case of GCC and Florian Klämpfl in the case of FPC.  In most open source projects, money goes into developing the project only after the project has attracted the attention of businesses as a potentially lucrative money-making platform.

p/s: Did you know Eclipse is from IBM and Java/Netbeans are from Sun/Oracle? They are all open source software!

Yes and the main reason Eclipse is open source is to make it more likely to succeed against what it was designed to compete against (I'll let you find out what that was.)

In the case of Java, originally it wasn't open source.  It was Sun proprietary.  _Presumably_, it became open source because proprietary programming languages have a tendency not to fare well in the marketplace.

Just because there are open source projects that are maintained by paid programmers does not mean that most open source projects are maintained by paid programmers.  The majority of open source projects are fairly small and maintained by programmers that invest their free time in developing them.

Lastly, this discussion is _way_ off topic and, should be continued (if at all) in a thread dedicated to it.  That said, I've pretty much said all I cared to say on the subject. 

[MarkMLl]

Those looking to programming as a life-time carer would do well to become at least acquainted with [COBOL] beyond the mere basics of "it has too many divisons, and sections, and subsections, and is extremely verbose"

In fairness, Pascal has const, type and var sections.

MarkMLl