Re: [NTLK] free newt paint

From: Laurent Daudelin (
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 00:32:58 EST

on 05/03/02 00:12, Alex at wrote:

> At 4:59 AM +0100 5/03/02, wrote:
>> In addition it helps support the shareware philosophy across
>> all platforms.
>> -Chet
> Sure, paying for shareware is a good thing. Seems like a fair
> concept. You try, you like, you buy. But, there are some other
> issues.... what about income disparity? Within North America, and
> especially, in countries around the world where $20US is mucho$$$
> I personally like the idea of NON-CRIPPLED shareware.... that way,
> those who can, pay, and those who can't don;t get left out completely.
> Sure, I know the argument goes, most ppl who can pay, won;t. But in
> this Newton Community? I doubt that's true. And even if it is, my
> first point is still factual. $20USD can be a lot of money in some
> places and to some ppl.
> So.... tips on how to get software for free, or for some hassle (as
> in this case), should be welcomed on this list. I don;t see the
> immorality here that other users obviously see.
> I see more immorality in basing shareware fees on US dollars, and
> having no sliding scale payment system, that takes into account the
> very real differences in ppl's situations.

Without getting into an argument here, don't forget that the authors who
decide the price are also facing realities here, in the US. The cost of
living, for instance, is one thing. I understand that the exchange rate is
not always on your side (like with Canada), but it's a fact of life. That
should encourage software creators from those countries to write more
software since when the amount they believe is fair for their cost of doing
things is translated in US money, it get much lower, hence raising more

Just my $0.02...


Laurent Daudelin            <>
Logiciels Nemesys Software

candygrammar n.: A programming-language grammar that is mostly syntactic sugar; the term is also a play on `candygram'. COBOL, Apple's Hypertalk language, and a lot of the so-called `4GL' database languages share this property. The usual intent of such designs is that they be as English-like as possible, on the theory that they will then be easier for unskilled people to program. This intention comes to grief on the reality that syntax isn't what makes programming hard; it's the mental effort and organization required to specify an algorithm precisely that costs. Thus the invariable result is that `candygrammar' languages are just as difficult to program in as terser ones, and far more painful for the experienced hacker.

-- Have you checked the FAQ lately? This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - To unsubscribe/manage: visit the above link. Questions:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:02:08 EST