any free apl interpreter? for linux?

sdf

On Dec 21, 12:23 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sdf



http://www.microapl.co.uk/apl/aplx_downloads.html

APLX for Linux (Personal Edition) Version 1.1

Version 1.1 of APLX for Linux is available free for non-commercial
use. This member of the APLX family brings the power and elegance of
the APLX development environment to the Linux platform (see Technical
Support page for notes on supported distributions). Click here to
download. And if you like the product, you will be able to purchase
the latest Version 4 of APLX for Linux at a very favorable price!

On Dec 20, 3:37 pm, aleph0 <apl68...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:23 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sdf
>
> http://www.microapl.co.uk/apl/aplx_downloads.html
>
> APLX for Linux (Personal Edition) Version 1.1
>
> Version 1.1 of APLX for Linux is available free for non-commercial
> use. This member of the APLX family brings the power and elegance of
> the APLX development environment to the Linux platform (see Technical
> Support page for notes on supported distributions). Click here to
> download. And if you like the product, you will be able to purchase
> the latest Version 4 of APLX for Linux at a very favorable price!

free for commercial use

On Dec 21, 1:25 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> free for commercial use

It's not a classical APL, but J is an APL dialect that is available
free on Windows, Linux & Mac.
http://www.jsoftware.com

> free for commercial use

AFAIK...
No, I think this is only a "personal version", NOT for commercial use
of course !
The Commercial Linux version is available at a cost which is IMO a
very fair price.
For Linux RunTIme licences, you must contact the vendor.

BTW...
The Windows version is also very fairly priced and the RunTimes are
free !

Check out their website , as posted before :

Prices : http://www.microapl.co.uk/apl/buyonline/buyaplx.html

On Dec 21, 10:34*am, aleph0 <apl68...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> The Commercial Linux version is available at a cost *which is IMO a
> very fair price.

Alas, you are wasting your time. I have had this discussion at length
with "gavino" last time he appeared on the forum, and "reasonable"
does not seem to a word that he recognizes. He firmly believes that
APL interpreters should be free. I could respect that if he was
planning to give his own work away, but as I remember it his main
argument is that HE can make more money if he doesn't have to pay for
APL. I tried to argue that if your main selection criteria for tools
and [business] parters is that they be free, my experience is that you
don't know how to value your time, or your products and services, so
you are ulikely to get very far as a businessman - but I failed
miserably.

Gavino: In my experience, APL is most useful to people who have a
powerful urge (not necessarily commercial) to solve problems in the
most effective manner they can find. This doesn't seem to be high up
on your list. If you don't think APL gives you enough of a "leg up" to
warrant paying something for it, I suspect that you will get very
little value from it. I hate to discourage people from using APL, but
in your case I think you are looking for something else.

Morten

A. APL is ahead as a programming language, without exception. It's
design has proved itself beyond ny doubt because it was designed to
work under DOS and has now evolved [seamlessly] to work with the
current height of .NET and in Linux. As programming languages, Visual
APL, APL/W, and APLX have credentials that are way beyond anything
that go by way pf programming languages. I expect APL2 would be in
this same group-only I do not know enough about APL2.
B. I do NOT believe that APL vendors should give away their APL for
free, although, APL/W and APLX come very close to this with their 'non-
commercial use' licensing offer and APL2 is free to educationa
establishments. Generally, the products are exactly the same as the
commercial products.

However,

1. there is no queue of people knocking at the APL door to gain
admission.
2. APL, apparently, is not a tool in the IT toolbox like any other.
For APL, you need to be a domain expert before you contemplate using
it - that means that all the criteria that the IT (cottage) industry
holds dear goes out of the window when it comes to APL.
3. Microsoft have provided free Express versions that can be used for
commercial development - that includes not just the .NET programming
languages but SQL Server too. IBM offer a version of DB2 for free as
do ORACLE of their databases for own use.

So, might there be room to contemplate APL as a product whereby its
use (after the payment of a reasonable fee for the acquisition of the
product) is free (or subject to a minimal charge) but that its
deployment is subject to a licence. At present, you have a 'small'
runtime licensing fee. Why not redistribute the cost - small product
cost, larger deployment cost?

I agree fully with most of the statements, except the last one.

I think APL-vendors have been making careful terms in their policy,
as far as I can see. Free runtime interpreters seem to me crucial
for distributing, because "you need to be a domain expert before
you contemplate using it" (right you are!!), and if you do you must
be able to share your expertise with others in your field, or be able
just to provide "systems" (programs) even without awareness of the
underlying product.



"AAsk" <AA2e72E@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2bcad4ec-187a-4a09-963d-5faf21e198c5@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> A. APL is ahead as a programming language, without exception. It's
> design has proved itself beyond ny doubt because it was designed to
> work under DOS and has now evolved [seamlessly] to work with the
> current height of .NET and in Linux. As programming languages, Visual
> APL, APL/W, and APLX have credentials that are way beyond anything
> that go by way pf programming languages. I expect APL2 would be in
> this same group-only I do not know enough about APL2.
> B. I do NOT believe that APL vendors should give away their APL for
> free, although, APL/W and APLX come very close to this with their 'non-
> commercial use' licensing offer and APL2 is free to educationa
> establishments. Generally, the products are exactly the same as the
> commercial products.
>
> However,
>
> 1. there is no queue of people knocking at the APL door to gain
> admission.
> 2. APL, apparently, is not a tool in the IT toolbox like any other.
> For APL, you need to be a domain expert before you contemplate using
> it - that means that all the criteria that the IT (cottage) industry
> holds dear goes out of the window when it comes to APL.
> 3. Microsoft have provided free Express versions that can be used for
> commercial development - that includes not just the .NET programming
> languages but SQL Server too. IBM offer a version of DB2 for free as
> do ORACLE of their databases for own use.
>
> So, might there be room to contemplate APL as a product whereby its
> use (after the payment of a reasonable fee for the acquisition of the
> product) is free (or subject to a minimal charge) but that its
> deployment is subject to a licence. At present, you have a 'small'
> runtime licensing fee. Why not redistribute the cost - small product
> cost, larger deployment cost?
>

Marketing can be a very difficult thing to master.
There are simple laws that control supply and demand.
In order to get someone to buy anything there must be some interest.
Even if something is essentially free the person receiving the product
will have to spend some time on it and that is also costing.
Anything to do with software and can be distributed on the internet
has a limited extra cost to the producer.
Sending one more copy to one more customer does not cost much and
especially if the customer does most of the work himself.
The customer muct be willing to invest the time it takes to do the
download.
Take the risk of executing a program to do the install.
We who know the potential and the value of the program can easily see
that it is both worth the effort and also it should be worth paying
for as well.
Those who have never seen the program and what it can do have to spend
quite a lot of time to discover it on his own.
The initial cost of installing an APL interpreter can be quite high.
You have to be fairly well motivated to decide to spend that time and
get over the barrier in order to see that you will be gaining from the
experience.
So even if producing the interpreter costs a lot of money and effort
it can be difficult to get someone to try it out and be willing to pay
for it.
I think that getting the interpreter out to as many as possible is the
right way to go.
Have several books, helps, demos and such freely available online for
free.
Then when there are a lot of people using APL can there be utilities
and expertise for sale to pay for all the other effort.

On Dec 22, 10:59*pm, "Jan Karman" <*a...@planet.nl> wrote:
> I agree fully with most of the statements, except the last one.
>
> I think APL-vendors have been making careful terms in their policy,
> as far as I can see. Free runtime interpreters seem to me crucial
> for distributing, because *"you need to be a domain expert before
> you contemplate using it" (right you are!!), and if you do you must
> be able to share your expertise with others in your field, or be able
> just to provide "systems" (programs) even without awareness of the
> underlying product.

It is our goal to make our products easier to get started with.
We're investing in a new book about APL, tutorials and code samples,
which should all to come "on line" in 2008.

We have also made the Dyalog product very much more accessible than
it has been in the past. It is free for educational use, and costs
only £50 for "non-commercial" use (any use except selling products
based on APL or using APL to run your own business). Several hundred
licenses have gone out under these programs since they were
introduced.

If you just want to share techniques and are not charging for
your work (even indirectly), note that ONE of the ways to license
Dyalog APL is to pay 2% of your Dyalog-based revenues. If you are
giving your product away, 2% is not very much :-)

It would be nice if we could just let our customers pay use whatever
they like, but we have a responsibility to our existing customers to
make enough money to stay in business (and GROW the business). The
market is not (yet) big enough for us to be able to give the products
away and live off "collateral" revenues.

We're working on it / Morten