I agree on RStudio. I used ESS for a while, but couldn't in good conscience justify it for new users. So, RStudio became my mantra for new R users, and I've followed suit.
I've wondered what it would take to instrument support for Julia in RStudio. RStudio is open source, but I don't really know how generically it could interface to whatever repl.
RStudio looks really impressive. I have heard reliably that they do use the AGPL license and legal threat to get people to pay up for RStudio licenses. I have nothing against people charging for good software, but this sounds like some sort of bait and switch. I wonder if someone else can confirm if this is actually true.
I'm not sure I understand how the AGPL allows them to do that. Doesn't the AGPL just require people "releasing" derived works as part of a service to also make their modifications free? I don't really know much about the AGPL other than what I could find on Wikipedia.
Assuming I understand the added requirement of the AGPL, wouldn't RStudio's legal recourse apply only to derived works that didn't release their code?
I wonder if any code written in RStudio gets contaminated with AGPL. I also believe that many companies will just pay the fees out of fear of litigation.
Why would you think anything of the sort? Is everything written in Emacs GPL? Is everything written in Eclipse under the Eclipse license?
Like (almost?) all FLOSS dev tools, there's no connection between how the code is written and the ensuing license. Suggesting such (even by way of a comment) is rather unfair.
I've wondered what it would take to instrument support for Julia in RStudio. RStudio is open source, but I don't really know how generically it could interface to whatever repl.