Compile a PB into PB library

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:15 pm

Can you imagine that if this feature was added to the PB compiler then i bet everyone would start to release code as libraries. Without the source who's going to look after the maintenance of all those libs? it would be hell.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:48 pm

why should anybody but the autor have a duty to maintain libs?

if people start to publish a lot of libs, they have to maintain this lot of libs.
if they don't, why should people use them?

hey, a LIB has to be really good to be used. would you use crap?
so if somebody posts links to a hundred libs, and nobody downloads them, he will start thinking about.

nobody is forced to load such libs down.
nobody is forced to work with hundreds of libs.
nobody is forced to help people who use libs.

but some people have good ideas and would like to publish them as libs and they would be useful for the community...

and it would be much easier to maintain your libs, if you just need to do another compiler run after an PB-update...

the momentary situation is much more an argument against the usage of libs
than the case if a lib-creator would be implemented in the IDE.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:03 am

I have a folder full of user libs for PB here on my HDD. Not one has been updated for use with PBv4.0. All programs that used these libs (and that have to be maintained) will have to be re-jigged. That's the price you pay when you use a lib with no source.

SkyManager · Post by **SkyManager** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:21 am

I think if Tailbite friends want to stay as PB companion, they have to make it more user-firendly, easier to install and use, more support, more examples, more tutorials and more updates/upgrade. Otherwise, I have to say that I shall give up Tailbite.

Hroudtwolf · Post by **Hroudtwolf** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:11 am

Just another senseless discussion about a simple wish from users.
I don't know what's the problem.

@Kale
We know all, that you have an opinion to everything in this forums.
At last, you show this in the OOP thread.
But I don't believe, Fred or Fre4k will consult you before they integrate any userwish in PB.

The PB-Team can decide by their self.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:51 am

Kale wrote:I have a folder full of user libs for PB here on my HDD. Not one has been updated for use with PBv4.0. All programs that used these libs (and that have to be maintained) will have to be re-jigged. That's the price you pay when you use a lib with no source.

noone asked you to use those libs.
and I would guess, some of them would already been upgraded to 4.0,
if the lib-creator was part of PB, don't you think?

at last, I am myself a fan of open-source libraries and includes.
surely they are a lot easier to maintain, even for the programmer who uses them.

but sometimes, only sometimes, you may have a code, an algorithm, an idea,
that should be better put into a LIB or at least into an DLL instead of released open.

sure, one could release a DLL if he didn't want to open the source,
but a DLL must be with the final application and is recocnizable
as a DLL and thus can be used by any user of the final product.

as a LIB it's only avaliable to the developer who uses your LIB for his application,
but not necessarily for a third party - the customer of the developer who uses your features.

for some smart ideas it would be a better protection to put them into a lib.

sure, this would only fit to very few of all LIBs, but some maybe really worth it.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:11 am

Hroudtwolf wrote:@Kale
We know all, that you have an opinion to everything in this forums.
At last, you show this in the OOP thread.
But I don't believe, Fred or Fre4k will consult you before they integrate any userwish in PB.
The PB-Team can decide by their self.

And? your point is? Do you really think i'm going to not have an opinion about something that has been continually asked before? You know it gets boring after a while.

This fear about closed libs has been raised before by lots of people! 2003 anyone?:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=16195 :roll:

I totally agree with what Rings says:
"A lot of libs here are 'hacked' together from Tips&tricks. Also most of those libs are not complete Open(source). "

And for your remark 'well you don't have to use them', guess what, i don't, because they are a pain in the arse for these very reasons!

PB · Post by PB » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:44 am

> Without the source who's going to look after the maintenance of all those libs?

Personally, I'd be making libs for my own use in my own apps, so I'd always
have the source and wouldn't need to use IncludeFiles anymore.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:54 am

mmm... i'm not saying it would be a bad feature but i know we will be deluged with libs.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:07 pm

Kale wrote:...but i know we will be deluged with libs.

yeah so what?
it's absolutely meaningless.
for a while there may be a flood of "look my lib" threads in the announcements.
only few will answer, they will move down the sites, and after a short period they will not be started anymore.
it is really not a problem, but the build-in-lib-builder (lol) would be a real advance.
(you just sound as if everybody would send their LIBs directly on your harddisk without giving you a chance to refuse it)

This fear about closed libs has been raised before by lots of people! 2003 anyone?:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=16195

yo hey, do you think I search the forum for 4 year old threads everytime some topic occurs?

And for your remark 'well you don't have to use them', guess what, i don't, because they are a pain in the arse for these very reasons!

yeah you're right, and if they're just a PITA, just ignore 'em, mate.

PB · Post by PB » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:08 pm

I can see where Kale's coming from. Let's take Kaeru's example of a bunch
of people releasing libs in the Announcement forum. Then, heaps of newbies
start using those libs, and saying PureBasic is great. Then, after a while half
those libs aren't maintained by their authors anymore, and those people now
have apps that can't run with the latest PureBasic, so they change their tune
and start saying PureBasic sucks now, and bad-mouthing it to all they know.
It could happen. Instead, uncalled procedures should not be compiled at all.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:59 pm

ok.. PB made it a bit clearer for me.
(your nick is still irritating for me)

I'll suggest at least adding a fat sticky topic to the announcement forum,
where is clearly claimed that UserLIBs are not PureBasic.

Flype · Post by **Flype** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:17 pm

One other solution could be the idea i suggested.

It was about a new command 'IncludeLibrary' which loads a pb file just like 'IncludeFile' but with a simple but efficient difference.

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=22638

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:23 pm

Kaeru Gaman wrote:yo hey, do you think I search the forum for 4 year old threads everytime some topic occurs?

Perhaps everybody should!

musicandstamps · Post by **musicandstamps** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:58 pm

Why not simply create a pb file of your useful routines and save it in an includes directory. Then when starting a new program simply include this file.

Or create a database of useful routines that can be copied from the database into code.

Or am i missing the point