🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:


|>Because software is special in that the cost of making one more
|>copy of gcc is 0.  Once a good program is written and placed in
|>the PD, it is like air: a public good.  From sound economics, then,
|>there IS a case for the funding of the creation of such public goods
|>using taxes.
|>

  So now we have gotten to the core of the matter.  You don't want to work
in private industry.  You want the government to just give you the tax
money of other Americans so you can have your fun doing whatever program-
ming project interests you.  This way all software can be designed by
committee in government buildings and the results can be distributed
freely for all.
  What about writing.  Surely we can give government jobs to writers.  And
what about film; it falls into the same category.  Surely the government
can spare a $100 million for Arnold's next film.  Let's not forget photo-
graphers and graphic artists.
  Hell, if the government foots the bill, then there is nothing that 
cannot be made that would not benefit the rest of society.  Cars, clothing,
Twix candy bars. (I cast my vote for this last as valid for government
expenditures.  Free Twix bars for all.)  This is all sound economics; just
ask officials of the former Soviet Union.


|>I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)


  Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge and answer the
real question that runs through this thread:  Just how much better than
GCC would a compiler have to be in order for people to pay, say, $100
for it?  Would enough people buy it to justify development costs.

 And please none of these, well look at Sun and MIPS, and etc.  These
companies are not developing for the good of all, they are developing
in order to make their hardware more attractive and make, gasp, dare we
say such a filthy five letter word, money.

Larry Denys
sl1yn@paradise.declab.usu.edu