Has Tailbite become a rod for Purebasic's back?

[Kale]

With the advent of Tailbite i see people keep making libraries, almost for the sake of it. While i agree Tailbite is simply awesome and El_Choni has authored a superb piece of software, i also think that it is misused and a pain for other software authors that may rely on a particular library if the source is not included.

Is Tailbite a blessing in disguise and/or a hinderance to learning? Have your say.

[El_Choni]

This has been talked to death in the forum, before and after Tailbite went out. I released it when Fred told me I was ok with him to do it. You are free to use it or not. Anyway, at some moment I'm sure PB will allow to make PB libs directly, the same it allows now to build DLLs. Until then, I'll keep updating it (it will also work with PB 4, I'm afraid).

About its "misuse", I agree; it's addressed in Tailbite's help file but, again, I can't make people use it as I want, they can do whatever they want with it.

[Kale]

Agreed. This is not a Tailbite bashing thread, i thought it would be nice to hear peoples thoughts. I still think it is an awesome piece of software and very useful. Just wondered what all you guys think?

[El_Choni]

I voted for "I'd be glad to pay 1000 € for Tailbite. Monthly"

[thefool]

Its great to make libraries but the source code should always be included.

As long as purebasics include system is as limited as it is, i think tailbite does make it easier.

PB should have something like a "general include folder" where all the files would be threated just like libs.

[Dare2]

Hi Kale,

I don't think it is Tailbite per se that is the issue.

The issue is a momentary enthusiasm that creates a lib, and then, later, a reluctance or inability to maintain it.

That is what leaves users in the lurch.

But Caveat Emptor. Even if the lib is free.

I voted for "I'd be glad to pay 1000 € for Tailbite. Monthly"

I voted to act as your collections agent @ 10% - you get the 10%



Edit:

Someone (Gnozal, Droopy, or someone else, I forget who) set me right on the possible breaking of libs. If they break, use the old PB to wrap them into a dll. Use the dll.

Perhaps there should be another option up there:

• Sourceless libs should also come as DLLs. End user can choose which to use.

Personally I use one third-party lib, not tailbitten, from PB-OSL. So the source is there if needed. And for my own libs I use includes.

[einander]

TailBite has become for me the essential PB tool to compile procedures of frequent use.
I use a lot of TailBite API wrappers, maths and drawing funcions.
This is to me more fast and handy than using IncludeFile.

Viva El_Choni!

[netmaestro]

I think it should be the policy of every forum that hosts libraries to refuse most entries that don't include source unless a good and valid reason is supplied (I can't think of one at this moment). Sure, you could get a lib off somebody's link but Purearea etc. shouldn't host or endorse it without source.

PS - I don't get the rod-on-the-back bit. Is Tony Blair using it on his kids now?

[Dare2]

PS - I don't get the rod-on-the-back bit. Is Tony Blair using it on his kids now?

I think it should be the policy of every forum that hosts libraries to refuse most entries that don't include source unless a good and valid reason is supplied (I can't think of one at this moment). Sure, you could get a lib off somebody's link but Purearea etc. shouldn't host or endorse it without source.

Then that would have to apply to everything. "Test/Check out my prog", etc.

But isn't this a case of "let the user beware". If the download has no source, user can decide not to run it. Or run it.

Same with libs.


BTW, a nasty that can happen (and was briefly prevalent with asm code from places like, IIRC, programmers heaven). Source and exe both provided. User sees source, feels safe, and runs the exe. Ooops!

[netmaestro]

I think the key difference there is that with a lib you are asking a programmer to distribute your lib with his work, as though he were responsible for it - that's a higher standard than just trying out a demo.

[Shannara]

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.

Either way ... good luck.

[jack]

I concur with Shannara, well said.

[thefool]

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.

Except that if you use it for a commercial application, and the author for some reason stops updating and fixing bugs, and does not release the source you are basically screwed :roll:

[netmaestro]

Basically Screwed

Blued and tattooed

[thefool]

basically screwed

Blued and Tattooed

Just basically. In the reality its much worse


And i guess if you need to give up a whole product just that fast, your customers might get a little angry.