Path: utzoo!censor!dybbuk!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!apple!excelan!sjsumcs!horstman
From: horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Do class libraries have to be in source form?
Keywords: libraries, source, C++
Message-ID: <1989Nov22.101351.7062@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 10:13:51 GMT
References: <179@taumet.UUCP>
Reply-To: horstman@sjsumcs.SJSU.EDU (Cay Horstmann)
Organization: San Jose State University
Lines: 23

I will not purchase a library that doesn't come with source.
I develop PC based software, and several of the tools that I used came
from VERY small vendors. If I have source and the vendor goes under, 
I can recover.

Realistically, I rarely make changes to library code. It just is too much
of a pain to transfer the changes to the next release. 

I would also believe that a library with source would be of higher quality
since the vendor would presumably be embarrassed about passing lousy source
to their customers. (I have been proven wrong in this aspect.)

There is the learning aspect too. I have learned a lot from looking at
library source..

At least in the PC world, it is ludicrous for a vendor to say that source
availability increases software theft. Software theft, whether object or
source, is only an XCOPY away, and the only protection a vendor has is to
provide an on-going service to the customer. That of course requires a
lot more commitment than a $$$ <----> .obj trade. I would not want to work
with a vendor only interested in the latter.

Cay