> - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source,
but Chrome itself is not.
If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo.
> - Android is based on open source technologies, but is,
again, not itself open source in many cases.
Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services.
> - Many, if not most, programming language implementations
are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself
with this claim, as those with more experience remember
the dark days of paying for compilers.
Even C compilers.
As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
> As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
Not a much of experience in the embedded market, high integrity market, medical devices, hardware design, Fintech, HPC or deployments that require certified compilers, right?
That's certainly a difference from much of the open source world, with half the mobile phone market based on Android, for example. The market for certified compilers in the grand scheme is very small in comparison, so it could be argued that in general languages and programming is an area where open source has been wildly successful.
And that makes sense—the tools that developers use being metatools that they can work on and improve, targeted directly at the audience that can work on them—I'd expect nothing less than near complete adoption of such a thing.
A+, then K, Q/kdb are closed source. I wonder in dollars, not users, how much of the market for paid compilers/systems they have at the price per seat they fetch. The fintech community pays dearly for them because they are effective.
I use J, which is not that popular. It was closed, but has been open source for a while now.
If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo.
> - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases.
Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services.
> - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers.
As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).