http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660@Jeff: Yes, I completely agree with understanding what the tool is doing for you. It's just that often there's a lot involved in the implementation which doesn't actually affect the end result - I can know what a compiler is doing for me without really knowing exactly how a parser works, for instance. I need to know any *implications* from the parse process, but not the details of the process itself. Being able to do something after studying for a vast amount of time applies to almost anything though: and it doesn't mean I have any of that knowledge right now. I suspect we really are fairly close in our viewpoints though. A classic example is query expressions in C# 3. I think it's fairly important that C# 3 developers have at least *some* idea of what they really do - that it's a parse-time transformation into "plain" C#, which is how it can use extension methods or normal methods, can convert lambda expressions into delegate instances of expression trees, etc. There are those (including people whose views I usually respect, btw) who believe that's too close to being an implementation detail. Without understanding that query expressions are like macros whose expansions use lambda expressions, you can get into trouble quickly. Beyond knowing that the transformation exists, however, I don't really need to know exactly how the compiler achieves it, or believe that I currently have enough knowledge to implement such a compiler myself. Does that sound reasonable to you? I suspect we're both really arguing against cargo cult programming: http://blogs.msdn.com/EricLippert/archive/2004/03/01/82168.aspx I'll be interested to read your blog post :) http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment17http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment17Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:38:36 GMT@Jon - I agree with you on some of what you said but disagree in principle although I think I may have failed to articulate my point correctly. I don't think you need to fully write a tool for everything, particularly for complex tools, however you should at least basically understand what the tool is actually doing for you before you lean on it for being able to do something that you can't. For example, I can't write a compiler, but I'm familiar with how compilers work and I have written code in assembly language so I know what a compiler is doing for me. I have written a disassembler in assembly language so I know generally what the assembler is doing for me. I strongly agree with your point that you couldn't write a compiler without a huge amount of study. However, that means that if you did study, you could write a compiler if you really wanted to. That's the kind of skill that I think every developer should have and what's dangerous is developers who rely on the compiler to do whatever magic they think it does. I think I need to blog about this in more detail, give me a day or two. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment16http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment16Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:32:58 GMTMats, yes. GPL means that you have to GPL both your modifications and any source code that uses them. And yes, I am ignoring usage vs. distribution here. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment15http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment15Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:41:00 GMTRe: MS-PL, I need to clarify the earlier discussion. The MS-PL is a "BSD-like" license, which is more permissive than you (Alex) indicate above. The only caveat is that you MUST post the license somewhere if you use the code. That's it. So specifically, you can take the code, roll it up into your Instant Billionaire Software Moneymaker product, post the license somewhere (maybe even just in the source code), and continue to charge a billion dollars for your closed-source product. You're done and in compliance with the MS-PL. Oh, and "IANAL". http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment14http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment14Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:48:44 GMT(None of this is in any way taking away from Ayende's point that there certainly *are* tools which can be implemented at a reasonably simple level if necessary, by the way. Things like an IoC container, unit test framework, or logging framework are good examples.) http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment13http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment13Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:53:15 GMTJeff, I disagree about having to be able to build your own tools before using an equivalent from someone else. I couldn't write a compiler without a *huge* amount of study. Does that mean I shouldn't write any C# code? I certainly couldn't write a VM with garbage collection, native interop, JIT compiling and any number of other things .NET supplies. Does that mean I shouldn't use .NET at all? After all, it's just a tool to a large extent. Should I have to be able to write an IDE before I can use Visual Studio? Yes, you should understand how the tools work at some level. I understand a reasonable amount about the JIT and garbage collector - but certainly not enough to implement one myself. Yes, a web developer should know enough about HTTP to be able to see what's going on, understand the impact of various options in terms of requests/responses - but should they also be able to write a web server? A web browser? A network stack? Jon http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment12http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment12Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:51:12 GMTEven with the GPL, if you don't distribute copies of the modified code, you don't have to share the modifications. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment11http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment11Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:45:05 GMT"NHibernate's license is LGPL, it means that if you modify NHibernate, you must share _the mdifications_" Huh? That would be GPL, no? If I modify and /distribute/ an LGPL lib, the modified copy of the lib must also be distributed under LGPL (or, optionally, GPL) and I must make prominent notice of the changes. Was this what you meant? If I make changes to an LGPL lib and just use (not distribute copies of) the lib, I´m under no obligation to share my modifications with anyone. /Mats http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment10http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment10Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:24:51 GMTYou make a good point about building the tools. I think that anyone who uses tools to allow them to do things that they don't understand is like giving a table saw to an elementary school class for arts and crafts. Ajax is a good example of this; many people depend on dojo or atlas or whatever and don't really know how it works. I could build my own Ajax framework if I needed to (and I have). I think that everyone who uses any type of tool should be able to implement those tools, even if their implementations are not production quality, otherwise you have no business using tools. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment9http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment9Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:02:25 GMTAlex, That is how I read it. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment8http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment8Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:59:45 GMTFrom MS-PL: (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. Does it mean that whatever you created for your customer using files from SvnBridge shoule be redistributable royalty-free? http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment7http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment7Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:52:31 GMTAlex, SvnBridge is released under the MS-PL. The MS PL was approved by the OSI: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html You can take SvnBridge and do whatever you want, likewise for any of the files in it. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment6http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment6Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:43:02 GMTSteve, I don't follow the relation between dependencies and auto registration. I just register that and let the container do the rest. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment5http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment5Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:36:55 GMTAyende, But you cannot use files from SvnBridge either, right? It's open source is it not? http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment4http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment4Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:30:10 GMTHow do you apply dependencies in the container using that autoregistration ? Funny, these same places allow you to write tons of proprietary code but you can't use an open source project. Personally speaking: documentation, reputation, and stability are what we look for. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment3http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment3Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:26:51 GMTAlan, Ask your lawyer to explain the dangers of Apache license, I would be glad to hear it. NHibernate's license is LGPL, it means that if you modify NHibernate, you must share _the mdifications_. Code that uses NHibernate has no restrictions. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment2http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment2Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:48:11 GMTOne of the constraints I struggle with is using open source software in a commercial product. Even ones like log4net or DynamicProxy that are licensed under Apache or NHibernate licensed under LPGL cause the higher ups to spew fire. Nothing is used in our application that hasn't been vetted by a lawyer. No icons that are found on the internet can be used. No free or open source software can be used (unless the lawyer says it can). We are even told no 'cut and paste' can be used. This makes it difficult to deliver quality software because of our hands being tied. I've always worked under the assumption that I should never 'reinvent the wheel'. I'm not a great thinker so everything I know I've learned from others. I have learned to talk to our lawyer before putting anything into the product that might come from a 3rd party source. http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment1http://ayende.com/3188/field-expedients-or-why-i-dont-have-the-tools-is-not-an-acceptable-answer#comment1Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:45:06 GMT