PureBasic Forums - English

guys, I don't see the big deal about having the source code, if you want the source then write it yourself

jack wrote:guys, I don't see the big deal about having the source code, if you want the source then write it yourself

jack wrote:guys, I don't see the big deal about having the source code, if you want the source then write it yourself

Why re-invent the wheel?

Kale wrote:

jack wrote:guys, I don't see the big deal about having the source code, if you want the source then write it yourself

Why re-invent the wheel?

Thats EXACTLY what it is about.
If its not commercial, and you do not wish to make it later, what is the deal about holding the source code?

I must say i've never tried Tailbite, but it is a great idea and so i voted the 2nd option

The arguement (and I agree with you) can be used with all libraries that an application depends on. The way I figure it is ... If the library is pay to use (ie, commercial), and in the receipt or contract, states that when you buy it, you get unlimited support, or 1 year support or whatever ... and the author decides to discontinue supporting the product before your contract is over, then you have legal grounds to sue for breach of contract Or the right to get severly angry because you just "bought" the support ...

Most libraries I see here is 100% free. It's like one of those sayings ... you get what you paid for. You didnt pay for support .. didnt sign out a contract to garentee support for a certain amount of time .... what right do we have to complain about something that we get for free?

And I say 'we' because I use free libraries as well.

hehe. Neat debate!

Some thoughts.

1: Whoever writes the code, it is their code. They can do what they want with it including but not limited to: Delete it, make a lib, make a dll, release source, release nothing. Outside of situations of malicious code, nobody has the right to force the author to take any action regarding it? Not so?

2: Everyone has the right to make a decision regarding a closed source library. They can say "I will risk it and use it" or they can say "I will not risk it and use it". And they can decide on future implications both ways. True?

3: If PureBasic moves on and the lib does not - and breaks - then the lib user can:
.. (A) Throw up hands in dispair (and find a bridge to jump from).
.. (B) Stick with the earlier version of PureBasic for their app.
.. (C) Write code that wraps the lib, create a DLL, mod to use the DLL.
.. (D) Write the needed routines themselves.
Correct?

4: If only open-source libs were allowed, how many libs would disappear? A few, I think. Some quite potent and from postings around the traps, quite a few are used. Wouldn't this be disadvantageous to those who choose (are not forced) to use the libs?

My opinion on this subject has changed slightly over the years. I don't use sourceless libs because they may break. However I don't think there is a right to force the issue either.

JustMHO.


BTW, just out of curiosity, why is a tailbitten lib singled out here? Why is it more of a "rod" than a non-tailbitten lib? A lib written in C can break. For example, it could have a command called "MakeCoffee" that causes havoc when the PureBasic "MakeCoffee" statement comes out.

How did you know MakeCoffee() was implemented?

I bribed Fred. It had better be implemented!


Edit:

Hmmm. How do you know it is implemented? And does it have the #PB_MonitorCoffeeCup | #PB_AutoRefill flags?

last thing i heard fred went into hospital... it's a language thing you see... he's now walking around with this... contracption... partially buried between his shoulderblades (which cramps his style so they're considering relocating the equipment, no, not *that* equipment)... anyway, he thought you were talking about implantation of CoffeeMaker()...

so, as usual, in the end it's your fault

Shannara wrote:From what the various comments from Fred and other high flyer members is that the PB compiler is smart enough to only include certain procedures from a library that is used and nothing more. When we use an include file instead, all procedures (whether used or not) is included in the final compilation.

As for the virus in library argument, then the exact same risk applies to every single exe, dll, lib (and others) out there. Yet people still use them ... It doesnt make it right, but its not limited to PB libraries ...

As for refusing libraries on the forum unless their source is available, IMO, is plain wrong. It goes back the same as the previous tailbite thread/argument on the forums. Forcing someone to release the source code of their product should be outlawed .. OR, if that is to be forced, then everything should be forced to have its source availabe such as Purebasic itself .. I mean, you have to be fair, right?

And to think of it. It really doesnt make much sense to release the source code of anything nowdays. There really is no advantage at all. Lots of myths, but no advantages unless the owner decides to discontinue, then have the option to release the source, but not force ... It's the same as forcing a man or a woman to do other things ... same analogy.

Agreed.

My opinion (no flame war please) : you like it you use it, you don't like it you don't use it. You are free, as are these libraries.

It is strange that some of you are afraid using free libraries but not using commercial libs without source.
For example, what about the PV_Gadget library wich seems to be widely used. No source I presume ? You may say PureVision is not free and you have paid for the support ... But not for eternal support ... How many commercial apps have disappeared ?

As for only allowing open source libs on the forum : do what you want. I write libs for my own usage and share them. If I am not allowed to share them I will still use them myself, no problem.

Dare2 wrote: 3: If PureBasic moves on and the lib does not - and breaks - then the lib user can:
.. (A) Throw up hands in dispair (and find a bridge to jump from).
.. (B) Stick with the earlier version of PureBasic for their app.
.. (C) Write code that wraps the lib, create a DLL, mod to use the DLL.
.. (D) Write the needed routines themselves.
Correct?

Sorry that is not correct all of them.

A: Correct.
B: NO! I talk about if the LIB has a bug. Not because of a new pb..
C: Nope. That wouldnt fix the bug now, would it?
D: Problem is, the reason you use a lib is because you cant do that.

Correct? Now it is.

This is all wind.

Unless we were born yesterday, we know that a lib might not get ongoing support. If we use it, it is in that knowledge and we live with the consequences.



Back on topic: As TailBitten libs can come with or without source, I vote that TailBite is exonerated.


Back off topic:


@gnozal:

Just out of interest, was it you and I had this discussion and you changed my opinion.


@blueznl:

Sorry to hear that. Is the coffee Fred produces drinkable? How does he dispense it?

Dare2 wrote:@gnozal:
Just out of interest, was it you and I had this discussion and you changed my opinion.

Yes

Personally I prefer to see the source of what I include.

For my work, I have a folder called "Sources". Inside, many folders for each program source. Usually I tend to divide functions I use often in more than one programs on external files. And 'IncludeFile' works fine for me.

I do this (with PB, Pelles-C or Blitz) : --> for functions used only in that program --> for generic functions used in different programs

'Registry.pb' stays in the general folder "Sources", I mentioned above.