Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ncar!boulder!tramp!hunt
From: hunt@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HUNT LEE CAMERON)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: comp.binaries.amiga (was Re: Picture swap)
Summary: Binaries are useful
Keywords: binaries, useful, C, compiler
Message-ID: <6714@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 18 Jun 88 19:02:49 GMT
References: <8806161902.AA16559@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <417@jc3b21.UUCP> <2827@umd5.umd.edu>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: hunt@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HUNT LEE CAMERON)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 51

In article <2827@umd5.umd.edu> louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
>The binaries group is worthless to me.  I don't run (non-commercial) programs
>distributed in binary-only form.  Who knows what lurks in there.
Wait a second.  Isn't that being a little closed-minded?  I know that there
are some buggy code being posted, but that is noted by the 'untested' comment
in the summery line.  All the 'tested' software I've used has worked.
I've received the BEST binaries from this source (eg: Shell 2.07, dme, ARP,
zoo, DNET, etc.).
>
>All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler.  Maybe I have weird
>friends.  
Maybe not weird, but from my experiences people who have C compilers are
far and few between.  Not to mention that you really need more that 512K
to compile large programs.  I'm a poor student.  I could barely afford
an Amiga, I don't have an extra $200 laying around for a C compiler (I
use Modula-2 anyway), nor do I have the intention to pirate one.  My money
would be used next on an A2000.
>
>But wait..  If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR
>comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose?  Which is more
>educational?  Which is ultimately more useful to you?  I know I'd pick 
>the sources group, no questions.  I can't learn anything from binary-only
>postings, and I can't fix bugs in binary-only distributions.
But I don't think that we *have* to make that choice.  We need both.
As I said, I think that you're overstating the bug problem.  Do you *really*
enjoy plowing through line after line of usually sparsely-commented C code?
I know that it's sometimes neat to think 'How did s/he do that?' and find
it in the code, but mostly I find looking through code boring.  I only do
it to lift an occasional clever routine.  I DO find the binaries educational,
especially in finding out what's the state of the art in Amiga software.  

   It seems to me that it's sort of like this: a publication comes out in a
foreign language (C, or an equicvalent high-level language) and many people
want to know what it says (run it), so you're suggesting that we only make
available the original text (the source) and not make it available in these
people's native language (binary).  Ok, so maybe quite a few may know (have
a compilier for) one language, say French, but what about German, Hebrew and
Chinese?  True, some information is lost in the translation but I sure wouldn't want to plow through French text every time I wanted to read a French novel
(even though I know some French). 

   Besides it doesn't make sense time-efficientcy wise.  Why should thousands
of Amiga users be forced to recompile source files when thy could have compiled in one central location?  If it were true that the code posted in the source
and binaries section were only for educational and not functional purposes, why not demand that the only source that would come over the net be blocks of
example code?  I don't think that most people would be satisfied with
example-only code.
>
>Louis A. Mamakos  WA3YMH    Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU
>University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming

Lee Hunt                                                 University of Colorado
                 internet: hunt@tramp.colorado.edu