Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!hao!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!splut!jay From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?) Message-ID: <66@splut.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 08:51:22 EDT Article-I.D.: splut.66 Posted: Wed Aug 19 08:51:22 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 18:48:53 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <321@brandx.rutgers.edu> Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 87 Summary: What about people who don't like to program in C? Xref: mnetor news.admin:875 news.groups:1383 In article <321@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > In article <25134@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > In the Macintosh world, most of the binary stuff posted is stuff posted from > > off the net -- gotten from a source and passed around. There is no source > > available in any way, shape, or form. > > Huh? Do they burn it or something? Or is it that they have those > funny new modems that can transfer binaries but not sources? Or are > you saying that people don't post the sources because of the copyright > notices in them (although they feel free to post derivative works > created by compilers)? Maybe the author has discovered a better way to do things and doesn't want to tell the whole world about it... By 'gotten from a source', I think he means 'picked up from somewhere besides the net', not 'gotten in source form'. Most programs (at least in the PC world, anyway) are distributed ONLY in binary form; the author doesn't release source. > > It has also been shown that for the > > Mac sources are actually larger and less useful than binaries -- less useful > > because there are enough different development environments that the only > > way of ensuring that someone can use something is by passing the compiled > > application. > > Right. Recall I didn't claim that binaries were pointless in the > current state of affairs. Just that they were suboptimum and would be > unneeded if a public domain C compiler were written (which I volunteered > to write myself given a few trivial incentives). Only if you then declare that all programs are to be written in C. > > Frankly, I would guess that few people want or need sources. If most of the > > Mac stuff came to me in source form, I'd probably trash it untouched -- I > > don't have the time or inclination to try to convince something to compile > > just so I can see if I want to use it, and I certainly wouldn't bother > > If it were developed on a compiler that you had access to, it would > not be a time consuming matter to compile it (although I will always > maintain that it is foolish to compile unread sources -- although less > foolish that trusting binaries you didn't compile yourself). Only if you're a programmer. The average user 1) can't read programs, especially in a language as cryptic as C, and 2) isn't interested anyway; he just wants something that will run and do neat things for him. > > Remember, what works for Un?x systems may not work as well for other > > operating systems. Don't over-simplfy your reality. It doesn't work all that well for Un*x, either...I'm having more trouble than I ever imagined taking source off the net and making it run under System V. > [Well gee, if it is `my' reality, then I will do whatever I bloody > well please with it.] I get this feeling that you and others are > trying to maintain that today's micro's are such simple-minded systems > that they can't handle source generated by two different programmers. > If this is the case, then perhaps the net will have to suffer along > with binaries until the MacIntosh, Amiga, St, and IBM PC reach the > level of development of my Apple IIc. I had thought that all they > were missing was a public domain C compiler, but perhaps there is > something else lacking in their spirit. You're showing an astounding bias: that all programmers want to work in C to the exclusion of all other languages. Assuming, for the moment that programmers will want to release source for free (I'll shoot that one down in a moment), you still have to contend with different library functions, different word sizes, different word orderings, different file system semantics, different peripheral environments... between computers. Even among computers running the same processor and OS. Your other assumption is also invalid. Why should a programmer, writing a shareware package and hoping to make some money off of it, release his source code for free? If he chooses to release it at all, then he will at least hold onto it until he gets the registration, since otherwise a person could rip out the essential guts of the program, slap a new shell around it, and distribute it himself...thereby undercutting the original programmer. Software ain't free anymore. This isn't limited to Apples, or IBMs, or STs, or whatever computer you choose to name... it's a feature of software itself. -- >splut!<...Jay Maynard, K5ZC | uucp: ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!splut!jay "Don't ask ME about Unix... | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD (...e-i-e-i-o!) I speak SNA!" | CI$: 71036,1603 FidoNet: SysOp @106/64 The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.