Re: [MacPerl] Distributables?

[Matthew Langford <langfml [at] eng [dot] auburn [dot] edu>]

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, David Rouse wrote:

> If a script (or other custom software) isn't in plain text I feel I
> could just as well buy shrinkwrapped software, stumble thorough writing
> it myself or do without. There have been too many times where companies
> have gotten stuck, badly, when their developer dies, moves away, takes a
> full-time job etc. 

Great.  I agree.  But we are computer geeks.  There are situations where
people are not in a position to use the source:  they don't need or want a
programmer on-staff.  That's who shrinkwrapped software is for.

I'm not trying to get the Perl community to start hoarding scripts.  I'm
simply saying that there are situations where a MacPerl standalone would
be valuable.  Even though I contributed 90% of its code modules back to
the Perl community through CPAN, I would still want to make the app itself
a protected standalone.

When a developer stops working on a program, the users of that program are
screwed, no matter what.  In my experience, modifying legacy code is
nearly always more costly and time-consuming than re-writing it from
scratch.  I'm talking small projects here, because if you could afford to
hire a team, you could afford to maintain some continuity.  Having the
source available, or making the product free, does not help the situation
in the least.  It is false comfort.  At most, it allows the customer to
make small changes, to limp along for a while longer.


> What I really like about perl solutions is that I can treat buying software like
> buying a car. In other words, look under the hood, add mods and fix it myself.
> If I had to buy a car that could only be fixed by the dealer, never be modified
> by myself, etc., I might not. Naturally I drive a 72 VW Bug, and I think that
> the lock on the door is for my protection, not VW's.

Mmm, we're mixing up metaphors here.  My point was that even though car
locks are ineffective against determined burglars, we use them because
they decrease the likelihood of the car being stolen.  If our situation
warrants it, we may also add significant other bothers (alarms, Clubs,
etc) for further protection.  Deciding that those who want to steal our
car will steal it, and therefore not allowing for the possibility of
locks, would be equally as silly as refusing to consider protected
software.

Furthermore, there are software markets where do-it-yourself modification
simply will not happen.  This is every market where nearly all the
customers are not skilled computer workers.  

I'm not arguing that do-it-yourself is wrong.  MacPerl will always support
sending the source file.  But standalones aren't wrong, either.  They can
be a favor to the customer, and protection (not absolute, but sufficient)
to the entrepreneur.



--
MattLangford 




***** Want to unsubscribe from this list?
***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch