HOWESDW@wsuvm1.BITNET.UUCP (03/14/87)
Received: by WSUVM1 (Mailer X1.23) id 5540; Sat, 14 Mar 87 12:44:17 PLT Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 11:57:22 PLT From: Don Howes <HOWESDW@WSUVM1> Subject: source vs binary To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu I've been watching the ongoing discussions about the relative merits of having source versus binary libraries with some interest, and I feel it's time for me to toss in my two cents worth. First, I don't think that there is anything inherently *wrong* in either type of library, but some of the arguments that have been advanced for or against having binary/source available (choose one) have gotten a little far afield. My own opinions will be colored by my programming background, I've worked at our campus computing center and am presently working as an independent micro consultant. Like most people who work with machines for any length of time, I've become familiar with a number of languages. These include C, Pascal, FORTRAN, BASIC, Smalltalk, Prolog, Lisp, Icon and assembler (8086 and 68000). This list isn't to sing my praises, but to illustrate that I'm something of a language junky, and for good reasons (which I'll get to in a minute). Most of the comments that I've seen about the need for a binary library can be summarized by "I don't have a compiler for language X, so I wouldn't be able to use the code". This is a valid point, from what I will term a "user" perspective (and there is nothing wrong with that). If what you are interested in is getting a utility or a program to solve a specific task, then binary is all you need. However, if folks think about what types of requests for information get posted to the net, they're generally of the form "I'm trying to write a program which does X, but I can't get Y to work, any ideas?". THIS is where having source available is invaluable and it doesn't matter *what* the language is (this is where it's important to be a language junky). What you get from source, regardless of the language, is the SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS. You want to do real time animation using shape tables? I'm sure that someone who has posted games has solved that one. Can't make the RS-232 port work? No problem. Want to get to the nitty-gritty of reading and writing disk files using assembler? That's been done to. What you get with source is the "programmers" perspective, you get to see how someone solved the same problem you're having. Since there is generally more than one way to solve any problem, and knowing most programmers inability to leave well enough alone, I'm sure that people would improve on the general level of code available, as long as they have the source. It's a lot harder for this to happen if all that is available is the binary, and the author of the program has to make all the bug fixes. Don't forget folks, these guys are doing this on their own time and for free (that's why it's called public domain), they don't have a lot of spare time (I'm sure Moshe or Simon will nod their heads at that). So, there it is (I guess it's a little more than two cents worth). Neither binary or source is better or worse, but they do serve different purposes (and maybe, even different audiences). Personally, I'm much more interested in how people did something, than in what the program does (in most cases). This makes me more interested in having source available, over binary (if I had to make a choice). Don Howes HOWESDW@WSUVM1 (BITNET)