Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!hobbes!root
From: root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Are binary groups necessary?
Message-ID: <153@hobbes.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jul-87 15:27:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: hobbes.153
Posted: Wed Jul 22 15:27:30 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 04:23:55 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <2923@ncoast.UUCP> <300@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher)
Followup-To: news.admin
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Wisconsin - Madison  Spanish Department
Lines: 125

This is a note trying to give positive reasons for a binary distribution.  It
does not try to address the issue of whether Usenet should or should not
do the distribution.                         ******

| lines are from Bob Webber's article <300@brandx.rutgers.edu>
> lines are also from Bob in a previous article
< lines are from Brandon Allberry in response to the | > lines
Mini opinions and psuedo flames by me are enclosed in []'s


| > Bob Webber advocates:  No binaries, everyone should send sources & get
| > a compiler (with source for it, too).
| < Brandon Allbery writes:  compiler source is expensive (ACC = $1000+);  cheap
| < ones (P-code) are slow.
| 
| That $1000 stands for alot more than one non-optimizing C compiler.
[ $1000 is a University price.  Other mere mortals must pay much much more. ]

The majority of people in the PC world share the following traits to some degree

	1) Very short of money.  $1000 would buy a complete NEW computer!  Hell,
	   most even have an adversion to spending $25 on Shareware!  Before
	   the advent of Turbo C for $80 the next best ranged from $150 to
	   $500+. (and these did NOT come with source)  The top 3 (Microsoft,
	   Lattice, and Borland) all claim ANSI conformance.  There are still
	   enough differences to make most code NOT portable between the 3!
	2) Very short of time.  The time taken by modifying sources for
	   their compiler (this is non-trivial!), compiling, and testing
	   JUST ISN'T THERE!  If there is a choice between binaries and
	   compiling sources, many would rather do without than have to
	   compile it!  This is related to:
	3) Micro computers are SLOW.  Compiling larn (for example) takes nearly
	   an HOUR of computer time.  (I just know that someone has a whizbang
	   386 that compiles larn in 10 minutes - Mail me the flame, don't post)
	4) for many things, the binary is enough.  Many people (myself NOT
	   included) don't care about sources.  Also the fact that the
	   shars for larn totaled about 400K and the MSDOS binary was only about
	   200K must count for something. :-)

| < [Brandon talking about GNU C: ]
| < run on small machines, as it's designed for VM architectures.  And, I have
| Its front end would save someone some work.

[
 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!

 I am putting my money where my mouth is and writing a scanner/parser for a
 Pascal to C translator (just in the beginning states now); why don't you do
 likewise for a usable C compiler?  The front end is trivial compared to
 the code generation for the 808x chip.  This is an arch. where pointers
 to the same object are not necessarily equal to each other!  Non-linear
 address spaces are "so much fun" :-(.
]

| It is easy to write compilers that work.

Like I said above:  Write one!  After you have done that, then you can bitch.
You need to EARN your prerogatives on this net - ie we all respect and listen
to Rick Adams because of the work he did on the news SW; Dennis, Ken and Co
have proved themselves with [insert bulk of AT&T source here :-)]; Mark
has paid his dues with mucho lotso from Berkeley and the UUCP project.  Me,
I'm still a nobody.

| It is not easy to write a compiler that work enough better than all other
| available compilers to make it a marketable item.

If it is FREE (ie source sent out on Usenet) then people will use it no
matter what else is out there.  Look at Cain's Small-C for the CP/M world. 
If it works AT ALL, people will recomend it to others.  If it's good, you
get to be a net.god :-) :-) :-) (cf. prerogatives)

| The time and problems come from the bells and whistles like optimizers
| and fancy libraries.

And let's not forget bells like correct code generation, correct dynamic
memory management, correct pointer arithmatic, and of cource, correct
(ANSI) language implementation.

| < Brandon (again) writes:
| < I'm sorry, but judging small computers by large-computer standards is bogus.

A-MEN!

| Webber's response: ...(and that most purchasers of Unix machines have had
| the funds to purchase a C compiler)

Most versions of Unix (ALL before SV) _came_ with a C compiler!!!  No extra
funds involved.  An IBM PC comes with a BASIC interpreter!  Compilers come
from 3rd parties for $$$.  An IBM PC is usually owned by a single person,
while "Unix machines" have typically been owned by groups like
Universities, Companys, Governments, and the like.  Quite a different
funding base.

| But of course, there are people that LIKE binaries.  I remember
| reading of one software `donator' that donates binaries-only so that
| people can't make `incorrect' patches to his programs.  Sigh.

[ This sounds like a snobish out of touch response.  Even if I didn't
take exception to the rest of his note, this paragraph really rubs me the
wrong way! ]

So that people could not add a routine that formatted the hard disk whenever
the user chose "quit", and then distribute the binaries as the ORIG program!
[can you say Trojan Hourse?  Good, I knew you could.]

So that people didn't break the code and then call the donor asking for help.
(Hi - it's 1am in Detroit, the person on the phone is from CA and he's wondering
why the program won't compile after he "just changed a few things". :-((( 
This happened to ME several times, so I know the feeling)

So that the donor kept control of his own work.  (Nothing at all wrong with
that!)  "Sigh."  INDEED!  Sure it is nice to have sources, but to expect them?
Boy are *you* spoiled!  How much does Unix source cost? $40,000 or some such.
How much does source for one of the commercial databases cost?  You could buy
an OEM version fo MS-DOS source for 5 figures, too...

| -------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)

 - John

-- 
John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher  plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU