webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/23/87)
In article <153@hobbes.UUCP>, root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > [ > Instead of this META DISCUSSION why don't YOU use this front end and write one? > YOU, Bob Webber. Not someone else. > > Put up, shut up, or DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE about it! > Well, I never meta discussion I didn't like. And if I did everything that I said was easy, then I would have no time to do things that are actually difficult (of course, there is always time for the impossible). I maintain that writing a simple C compiler for a standard micro is easy and I will make you the following counter offer: Most people distribute public domain code from a wish to share with a community of likeminded people. I have no wish to share with a group of people too lazy to write a simple C compiler, so clearly you can't expect me to do it for this reason. You have elsewhere said that people on the net get things done the way they want because they have donated to the net software and administrative effort. I disagree and further maintain that if I did something for the net there would be no expectation that things would start working in a manner I think is more reasonable. Although everyone on the net maintains they are doing what is `right,' there is too much descrepancy between my notions of `right' and the behavior I have observed by the `backbone' and `moderators.' Thus, I am not willing to rely on their `good faith,' but I will enter into some variation on the following agreement if anyone is interested. The details to be negotiated in news.admin, but the basic thrust to be: 1) I will begin work on a public domain portable C compiler (to be described below). 2) A moderated group called comp.pd.compilers will be created for purposes of progress reports on this and similar future projects, bug reports, and compiler releases. [Moderator to be agreed upon; I mention moderation not because I think it is necessary to the project, but rather because I think it would be necessary in order to get the agreement mentioned below.] 3) Upon completion (to be specificed later, but to include self-compilation) of said compiler and port to some 808x machine (to be specified later, I assume what is wanted is some IBM PC), two other unmoderated groups will be created, comp.pd.discussion and comp.pd.sources for purposes of unmoderated discussion of public domain source-related issues and unmoderated posting of public domain sources. The complete compiler source will be placed in the public domain. 4) Enforcement: (On the net, the only thing that binds people is public opinion and a personal sense of responsibilty, so the following has been designed to maximally invoke such.) a) A posting of the general agreement and people agreeing to it will be made on news.announce.important (this is at least as important as other recent announcements there). b) A posting of the general agreement and list of people who originally agreed and a list of those who have since reneged will be posted on news.announce.newusers monthly. c) The initial list of people agreeing must include each member of the current quasi-net-government, i.e., the members of the backbone and moderators. d) Specifically, the backbone administrators are agreeing to carry the above mentioned comp.pd.* groups as long as they carry any moderated sources or binaries groups. e) Specifically, the moderators are agreeing that if they are moderating a group that carries sources or binaries and if the public domain C compiler gets ported to any of the machines of interest to their readers, then they will monthly announce the existance of the compiler and references on where more information can be obtained. f) New moderators and backbone sites will be expected to enter into this agreement before assuming said status. Failure to do so will automatically place them on the list of people reneging on the agreement. 5) Definitions: a) Moderation means any time when someone other than the poster must look at a message in order for it to be distributed across the usenet machines that carry the group to which it is being posted. b) A `simple portable C compiler' means the following. It compiles the basic C language as first described in Kernighan and Ritchie's The C Programming Language (Prentice Hall, 1978) with later clarifications in Harbison and Steele's C: A Reference Manual. Where Harbison and Steele describe alternate interpretations, I will be free to pick the one I like. Where Harbison and Steele describe extensions not present in the original 1978 description, I will be free to ignore these extensions (e.g., I wouldn't waste time on implementing enumerated types). Also, library routines are not part of the C language (quote pp 143 of K&R: ``Input and output facilities are not part of the C language''), so for the most part, I will leave libraries to people more intimately familiar with specific target machines and only supply with the compiler what I view as a minimal set. The general strategy will be to use an intermediate language similar to INTCODE and OCODE (described in BCPL: The Language and Its Compiler, Richards and Whitby-Strevens, Cambridge Press, 1982 and Richards, The portabilty of the BCPL compiler, Software Practice and Experience 1, 2 (1971)). The compiler will be written in two parts: 1) to translate C into the intermediate language and 2) an assembler/loader will be written to combine files in the intermediate language into executables for the target machine. So, the bottom line is I will trade you a compiler for a set of groups that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (07/26/87)
Regarding your proposal to write a C compiler so sources and not binaries
can be posted, here is a semi-cynical positive vote. I personally prefer
sources, IF it's compilable by the compiler I happen to have. If not, I
don't waste my time on it unless I see an urgent need: My time is valuable
and, as I've said in a prior letter, limited.
Writing a C compiler without the library that has grown around it, which by
now has a mostly unchanging core of functions (stdio funcs, malloc, etc --
most of what was around at the time of K&R / v7 Unix) you will have wasted
your time. Few peole except those with lots of time and patience will attempt
to compile any code with your compiler knowing that it will leave multitudes
of functions undefined in the linking phase. Writing the COMPILER is not
sufficient to cause people to abandon binary postings -- your goal is for the
sources posted to actually be runable after going through your free C language
processor. And what about extra-language utilities such as make? That is
widely becomming a commonly expected facility.
Furthermore, saying you'll only implement K&R C (minus the addenda including
such as enum's, and thus I presume assigning/passing/returning structures,
etc.) is just to save you work. If you're volunteering, do it right.
As for the draft ANSI standard, this will presumably become an accepted
standard in the near future. Borland, Microsoft, et al., would not be so
stupid as to put ANSI draft compatibility into their commericial products
if they thought otherwise.
Wake up. You can't have your cake [no binary postings] and eat it too
[not write a full C language programming environment]. If you're going
to do the work, don't do a half-assed job.
--
Andrew Burt isis!aburt
Fight Denver's pollution: Don't Breathe and Drive.urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (07/26/87)
[An offering to the gods of 0 and 1] Although I also would like to see the source for all programs being posted to the net, I don't see how even making that mandatory would eliminate the need for binary groups. There are some things that have to be posted as (uuencoded) binaries. For example IFF type files of pictures, music, etc. Also I believe PD C compilers already exist. Small C, PCC, GNU. If these are not truly PD they are close (in some sense) to this. The problem is PD doesn't mean it runs on my machine, and so why is it likely that the one being proposed here would. Therefore I think the challange and the offer are both off the mark.
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (07/27/87)
In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > So, the bottom line is I will trade you a compiler for a set of groups > that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? > Why are you assuming that all the code is written in C? Or that the authors *want* to release their source code? -nazgul -- ### {mit-erl,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!nazgul ### apollo!nazgul@eddie.mit.edu ### ### pro-angmar!nazgul@pro-sol.cts.com ### nazgul@apollo.com ### I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/29/87)
As quoted from <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | I maintain that writing a simple C compiler for a standard micro is easy | and I will make you the following counter offer: +--------------- Mr. Webber obviously is the sort who doesn't understand why there's so much fuss in the IBM-PC world about memory models. *That's* a *huge* reason why C compilers for MS-DOS aren't _easy_. His proposal also doesn't address: (1) People who need programs for their areas of expertise but whose areas of expertise don't include compiler writing. Snide remarks about people who can't write C compilers don't deserve to get programs are uncalled-for. (2) People who couldn't give a d*mn about compilers, they just want working programs. This is largely a superset of (1). Bob, it may come to a surprise to you that not everyone learns to write compilers while in their architecture/engineering/etc. curricula at college. You've just demoted these people to second-class citizens; a faster way to cause the computer era to end abruptly I can't imagine. If the head of Engineering wants Qubecalc, he is NOT going to buy a Pascal compiler to get it! Sources are NOT the final answer. For many people who use computers, they aren't even the question. Please remember that people other than CS majors use computers. May I also point out that C compiler SOURCES are a chicken-and-egg proposition? You'll have to distribute the compiler as a ***BINARY*** before the people it's targeted for can use it! (Cross-compilers are another thing not available to 99% of computer users.) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>
waltervj@dartvax.UUCP (walter jeffries) (07/30/87)
In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > : <--- MUCH GIBBERISH ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD DO IT HIS WAY. >So, the bottom line is I will trade you a [C] compiler for a set of groups >that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? > Do I understand this correctly???? Why the f*** do you think you have the right to make everybody else write code in some archaic minimal version of C that you happen to like?!? Think, for a moment. What if I want to write in LISP, or some other language. What you are proposing will censor me and anyone else who writes in anything incompatible to your 'nice little C compiler'. Furthermore you are cutting of all of the previously compiled material! So, the bottom line is that I think your suggestion rots. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? -Waltervj
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (08/02/87)
As quoted from <36502fbc.b0a1@apollo.uucp> by nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley): +--------------- | In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: | > So, the bottom line is I will trade you a compiler for a set of groups | > that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? | | Why are you assuming that all the code is written in C? Or that the authors | *want* to release their source code? +--------------- Mr. Webber made it clear in an earlier message that he considers anyone who doesn't want to distribute source code to be a wrong-headed, antisocial idiot who doesn't deserve to have his programs distributed anyway. As for programs not being in C -- I don't think he even considered that. It's probably the same kind of provincialism I pointed out from him above. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (08/05/87)
In article <6793@dartvax.UUCP>, waltervj@dartvax.UUCP (walter jeffries) writes: > In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > : <--- MUCH GIBBERISH ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD DO IT HIS WAY. > >So, the bottom line is I will trade you a [C] compiler for a set of groups > >that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? > Do I understand this correctly???? > Why the f*** do you think you have the right to make everybody else write > code in some archaic minimal version of C that you happen to like?!? >fwoosh!< flame, torch, burn, incinerate... > So, the bottom line is that I think your suggestion rots. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? Actually, I have a problem with eliminating binary-only groups, too: what about the guys who, for whatever reason, don't want to/can't distribute source? Still, Walter, your response was a bit harsh. After all, this isn't net.flame.admin... :-) Can we keep it to an adult level? -- >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.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/07/87)
>Can we keep it to an adult level?
Obviously not.
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. 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.
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
hacking soemthing from Aztec C to Lightspeed simply because some "higher
authority" has decided that binaries are not acceptible to the network.
Remember, what works for Un?x systems may not work as well for other
operating systems. Don't over-simplfy your reality.
chuq
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/09/87)
In article <25134@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Can we keep it to an adult level? > > Obviously not. ????? > 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)? > 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). > 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). > hacking soemthing from Aztec C to Lightspeed simply because some "higher > authority" has decided that binaries are not acceptible to the network. Sigh, looks like you have mistaken me for the backbone or something. > Remember, what works for Un?x systems may not work as well for other > operating systems. Don't over-simplfy your reality. [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. > We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703) I think I would have more respect for Mr. Pomfret if he had not used the pronoun ``we'' when all that was appropriate was the first person singular and he probably meant the second person plural, but wanted to appear polite. More straightforward is: You live and learn. Or you don't live long. -- Lazarus Long (as introduced into this timestream by Robert A. Heinlein in 1973) ------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
matoh@senilix.liu.se (Mats Ohrman) (08/10/87)
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: }} }Can we keep it to an adult level? }} }} Obviously not. } }????? } }} 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)? No, it's simply because most MacIntosh "free" software isn't public domain or completely free: It's shareware. Binaries are distributed freely, and if you like it, you can pay a (mostly nominal) sum of money and recieve source and documentation directly from the author (btw a means of distribution I like and think highly of). }} 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). Well, it's not only a question of the compiler itself, but also such things as libraries etc... And what if the source isn't in C? There's software written in Pascal, Modula-2 or even Basic or Fortran (aarghhh!), you know... Do you intend to write public domain compilers for all these languages and the corresponding libraries needed to use the Mac, Amiga (or whatever) system calls and user interface? }} 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). It still takes more time to simply download a binary from eg a Sun to a Mac than downloading the source (that's larger), set up your compiler, and compile. I'm not interested in hacking around in the sources. I want a finished and working program! }} hacking soemthing from Aztec C to Lightspeed simply because some "higher }} authority" has decided that binaries are not acceptible to the network. } }Sigh, looks like you have mistaken me for the backbone or something. Wasn't it a backbone decision you wanted? }} Remember, what works for Un?x systems may not work as well for other }} operating systems. Don't over-simplfy your reality. } }[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. Try 'programming environments' instead. }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. I still fail to see what's wrong with binaries. }} We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703) } }I think I would have more respect for Mr. Pomfret if he had not used }the pronoun ``we'' when all that was appropriate was the first person }singular and he probably meant the second person plural, but wanted to }appear polite. More straightforward is: } } You live and learn. Or you don't live long. -- Lazarus Long } (as introduced into this timestream by Robert A. Heinlein in 1973) } }------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) I don't see what reason there is in flaming another's ".signature"... _ /Mats Ohrman matoh@majestix.liu.se ********************************************************************** ** The Computer is your friend. The Computer wants you to be happy. ** ** If you are not happy, you may be used as reactor shielding. ** **********************************************************************
john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens) (08/11/87)
In article <321@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > 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)? No, it's simply that the people who wrote the software have probably never even heard of USENET, and they distribute the software in source form. The people who post the software usually don't know the authors, and may not even know they authors' names. The programs were compiled and tested under one compiler with one set of libraries, and may or may not work under any other compiler or version of compiler (or libraries). Does this mean we shouldn't distribute these programs that may work flawlessly, whatever their source may look like? -- John Owens Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA john@ODU.EDU old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET +1 804 440 4529 old uucp: {decuac,harvard,hoptoad,mcnc}!xanth!john
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (08/17/87)
In article <638@senilix.liu.se>, matoh@senilix.liu.se (Mats Ohrman) writes: >... [deletion of reasons that justify a Pyramid binaries group equally well] > I'm not interested in hacking around in the sources. I want a finished and > working program! There are no such things. However, some programs work better than others - but this is very difficult to verify without source. > }} hacking soemthing from Aztec C to Lightspeed simply because some "higher > }} authority" has decided that binaries are not acceptible to the network. > } > }Sigh, looks like you have mistaken me for the backbone or something. > > Wasn't it a backbone decision you wanted? The backbone decision requested was the creation of groups to open up the development of public domain compilers. > ... > I don't see what reason there is in flaming another's ".signature"... > _ > /Mats Ohrman > matoh@majestix.liu.se > ********************************************************************** > ** The Computer is your friend. The Computer wants you to be happy. ** > ** If you are not happy, you may be used as reactor shielding. ** > ********************************************************************** From Berkeley 4.3 Manuals: USD:10-8, section 5.8 [see also newuser postings]: ``Do not include pictures, graphics, or clever quotations that make the signature longer; this is not the appropriate place for them, and many sites resent paying the phone bills for such signatures.'' [There is a note at the end of that article indicating that it was inspired by the same person whose signature I was ``flaming.''] ------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (08/19/87)
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.
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/21/87)
In article <66@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes: > .... > 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. Assume X gives a source with a copyright notice in it to Y. Y compiles it and gives it to Z. Z now has a copy of an executable and sure enough there is no copyright notice in the executable, so when it is posted to the net, who will ever know? The notion of someone other that the author or an authorized agent of some posting a copy of binary (or a source) to the net just sounds like an invitation for trouble. > ... > 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. It is alot easier to contend with these problems given a source than given a binary. > 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? ... Let me ask you a different question. How many sites on Usenet do you think would be comforable with the idea of providing free advertisement and distribution of someone else's software when they found out that that other person was ``hoping to make some money off it''? [note: this is an entirely different question than how many people are sufficiently annoyed by such usage of the net to ensure that their cites don't pass on such software.] > 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. NO. This MAY be a feature of some current programmers, it has NOTHING to do with the nature of software. Just a few months ago I gave away a piece of software that had only one condition on it (if you change it, you should remove my name from it). -------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (08/22/87)
Hey, perhaps it should be pointed out that most of the Macs in existence
don't even have a compiler, much less a C compiler.
What good does it do to send source around when most recipients can't
even compile it?
Questions like what language to use, and observing that C hasn't yet
displaced all other languages, are interesting but quite secondary.
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)