Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!wolfen!wyvern!ph
From: ph@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Phil Skinque, DD (Ret.))
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Protection mode in BASIC
Message-ID: <1037@wyvern.cs.uow.edu.au>
Date: 1 Aug 90 01:43:08 GMT
References: <4020@sonata> <1990Jul31.124048.19015@druid.uucp>
Reply-To: ph@wyvern.cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Phil Skinque, DD (Ret.))
Distribution: alt
Organization: Leaping Lizards, Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <1990Jul31.124048.19015@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy 
 J.M. Cain) writes:
>
>[...] first let me mount my soapbox.  If you are writing programs
>for commercial sale you shouldn't be using BASIC.  If not you still shouldn't
>be using BASIC for anything but quick and dirty stuff.  If you feel you must
>use BASIC then you shouldn't be protecting them but rather let others see the
>actual code.  There are two benefits to this.  Others learn from you and some
>of them may be able to suggest improvements in the code for you.

Hmmm... please explain the logic underlying these comments. Why shouldn't
people use BASIC? And why should they sell unprotected software? Methinks
you've not thought this through. There are reasons why someone might want
to use BASIC, and reasons why they might want the slender bit of protection
that can be had with the standard BASIC interpreters. Your comments sound
like religion to me.



-- Phil.