1. zip etc
- Posted by Jiri Babor <jbabor at PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Jun 14, 1998
-
Last edited Jun 15, 1998
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BD97E7.24C260C0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David, Ralf & Co
(Sorry, David, for lumping you together with the other one), apart
from the nauseating OO discussions, we seem to be getting only a
fairly steady stream of resource managers, binders and special
compression routines. Call me a wrecker, but I still do not get it,
and I read the docs!
When I want to dispatch a bunch of files, I usually put them
separately in an empty folder so they do not get mixed up with
anything else (such a simpleton!), then I say a magic phrase
zip file_name *.*
and you know what, in a flash I have a spanking new file_name.zip,
which is usually only about one third the size of the original.
The unfortunate guy at the other end then usually puts the file in an
empty folder so it does not get mixed up with anything else (you see,
we, simpletons, stick together) and utters even a simpler magic phrase
unzip file_name
Try it, you would not believe it. Jiri
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BD97E7.24C260C0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>David, Ralf =
&=20
Co</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>(Sorry, David, =
for lumping=20
you together with the other one), apart<BR>from the nauseating OO =
discussions,=20
we seem to be getting only a<BR>fairly steady stream of resource =
managers,=20
binders and special<BR>compression routines. Call me a wrecker, but I =
still do=20
not get it,<BR>and I read the docs!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>When I want to =
dispatch a=20
bunch of files, I usually put them<BR>separately in an empty folder so =
they do=20
not get mixed up with<BR>anything else (such a simpleton!), then I say a =
magic=20
phrase</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2> zip =20
file_name *.*</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>and you know =
what, in a flash=20
I have a spanking new file_name.zip,<BR>which is usually only about one =
third=20
the size of the original.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>The unfortunate =
guy at the=20
other end then usually puts the file in an<BR>empty folder so it does =
not get=20
mixed up with anything else (you see,<BR>we, simpletons, stick together) =
and=20
utters even a simpler magic phrase</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2> unzip=20
file_name</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>Try it, you =
would not believe=20
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BD97E7.24C260C0--
2. Re: zip etc
>David, Ralf & Co
>(Sorry, David, for lumping you together with the other one), apart
??! I really am confused what I should do with remarks like this. All I do
know, is that it isn't me that's insulting some1 this time.
>from the nauseating OO discussions, we seem to be getting only a
>fairly steady stream of resource managers, binders and special
>compression routines. Call me a wrecker, but I still do not get it,
>and I read the docs!
I suppose you meant my EDOM library is not needed at all, cause we can zip.
Well, the point is not compression, or binding files together, the point is
we can now easily (read: fast, safe, simple & efficiently) store a sequence
containing any type of data.
Euphoria enables you to manipulate data, without having to specify the
datatypes, there range, etc.
But you couldn't easily store data to disk, without knowing the format of
the data preciously.
EDOM interpreters the format and stores both the format/structure and the
data to disk.
You could do this with print () get get(), but get() is *very* slow and
speed inefficient. Print () however is fast because it is a built-in
routine. However do you want { "ABC" } to be saved as: { { 97 , 98 ,
9 } }. 1) It looses its readability for text anyway. It loads back up
very slowly and it takes huge amounts of harddisk.
Imagine a complete database in a sequence, can be saved with one command.
Highscores, sprites, etc. don't need special routines to load or save them.
I hope this explains its usage to you.
If this too doesn't help, then maybe you don't want to understand it, maybe
due to some personal confict, eh... Jiri ?
Ralf
3. Re: zip etc
Ralf wrote:
>>David, Ralf & Co
>
>>(Sorry, David, for lumping you together with the other one), apart
>
>??! I really am confused what I should do with remarks like this. All I do
>know, is that it isn't me that's insulting some1 this time.
Ok, Ralf, on reflection, it was *very* cheap and nasty of me, and I
apologize, but I still feel you almost earned it...
Ralf continued:
>I suppose you meant my EDOM library is not needed at all, cause we can zip.
>Well, the point is not compression, or binding files together, the point is
>we can now easily (read: fast, safe, simple & efficiently
<snip: here you can insert any of the standard EDOM advertisements...>
Finally, Ralf reverted to his usual style:
>If this too doesn't help, then maybe you don't want to understand it
Help me some more! Show me, for example, a single contribution on the
Official Euphoria Page that would significantly benefit from the use
of EDOM, and I'll eat my (proverbial) hat. You can also include the
Archives, but let us do the rest in private; the public already had
their laugh and I do not want to bore them with the gory details.
Jiri
4. Re: zip etc
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Jun 14, 1998
-
Last edited Jun 15, 1998
Jiri Babor wrote:
> David, Ralf & Co apart from the nauseating OO discussions,
> we seem to be getting only a fairly steady
> stream of resource managers, binders and special
> compression routines. Call me a wrecker, but I
> still do not get it, and I read the docs!
I'm impressed. Most people seem to complain *before* reading the docs.
Before answering the question, let me dispute a couple of points:
1. This program does not do any compression. To lump it into that
category seems unfair to compression programs (such as EDOM2).
2. I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it is
signifigantly different than any other program that exists. I certainly
hope that I haven't re-invented someone else's wheel - there seems
little point in that.
3. I started the project after a bit of discussion with people in the
group. I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that several people
(besides me) have expressed interest in the program.
[Hmmm. Well, I certainly took a cue from Robert's packing program, so I
guess that it's clearly derivitive. But you can *read* my format, which
makes it different...]
Now then, on to the *interesting* question: WHY would anyone want to use
such a program? I consider that a *good* question.
Like most tools, I wrote this one firstly for myself. I was convinced
that being able to send out a single *big* file would be better than
lots of little files. If anyone else happens to share my delusion, they
are free to use the code. I am interested in any feedback, including
yours. So far, it's been the only feedback.
Not everyone shares this "monolithic is better" belief. Someone berated
Michael Packard (sorry if I mis-spelt that!) about sending out lots of
little files with his program, and called it something to the effect of
"unprofessional". Michael (correctly) did *not* take kindly to that
view. So you are in good company in arguing that programs such as mine
are not needed.
I will freely admit that there is nothing that my package provides that
cannot already be provided with the tools that are native to Euphoria.
With that having been said, I *do* think that there is utility in being
to send out monolithic programs.
For one thing, it hides "messy details" from users. And in this world,
impression is 9/10ths reality.
Although I do *no* compression, and the format is (intentionally) easy
to crack, it would not be difficult to change it so it provided some
measure of security. For example, you could change the routine to hide
the file names, and add compression (such as the Huffman coding). So it
could be part of a security feature.
If you are *very* careful, you can also write to these resource files.
So you could send an self-modifying EXE to someone, that kept track of
the number of times it was used. After a certain number of times of
being used, it could start nagging that the program be registered. [I'm
NOT a fan of nagging software]
Finally, if you had written an interpreter in Euphoria (as I often seem
to do), you could "bind" the user's program onto the executable, in the
same way that Euphoria does. So your interpreter would be able to create
executables. I think that is a *very* valid application.
Now, onto your other comment:
[Nauseating OO discussions]
I dislike the word 'nauseating.' Please don't use on-informational words
like this - they just provoke. Give some information as to *why* the
discussions are nauseating.
I'm not an advocate of OO for the sake of OO - I use it in my code
because there is utility to it.
For example, I'm using OO in my DOS GUI program. It would be possible to
do it without - but fairly painful. The ability to use polymorphic
functions (i.e.: tell all the children in a collection to render
themselves) is something that is *very* useful. The same goes for
inheritance. Deriving from base classes saves a ton of work.
I think the ultimate proving grounds of OO for Euphoria will be if
people can get interesting and useful applications written using OO, not
over the perfect formulation of syntax.
But I find these OO discussions useful. After all, Robert may eventually
decide to incorporate OO into Euphoria. So want to give him the chance
to select the best syntax possible - mine. 
-- David (parenthesis) Cuny
5. Re: zip etc
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Jun 14, 1998
-
Last edited Jun 15, 1998
David Cuny writes (regarding packing/bundling of resources):
> For one thing, it hides "messy details" from users. And in this
> world, impression is 9/10ths reality.
That's why I packed over 100 files into BUNDLE.DAT
in EUPHOR20.ZIP.
The person who downloaded Euphoria used to unzip and
see well over 100 files listed on his screen. I think some files
even scrolled off the screen when you did: dir /w
People's first impression was probably "What the #@%$!!
am I supposed to do now?". Some people probably gave up
without ever locating README.DOC or INSTALL.BAT.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
6. Re: zip etc
At 08:24 PM 6/14/98 -0700, you wrote:
>3. I started the project after a bit of discussion with people in the
>group. I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that several people
>(besides me) have expressed interest in the program.
I havn't had a chance to check it out yet, but it
sounds excellent.
Graeme.
----------------------------------------------------
7. Re: zip etc
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
To: EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu
<EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu>
Date: Monday, 15 June 1998 15:35
Subject: Re: zip etc
Sorry, David, for replying so late, but Monday is my main bridge
night. Very briefly, you wrote:
>Now then, on to the *interesting* question: WHY would anyone want to use
>such a program? I consider that a *good* question.
>
>Like most tools, I wrote this one firstly for myself. I was convinced
>that being able to send out a single *big* file would be better than
>lots of little files. If anyone else happens to share my delusion, they
>are free to use the code. I am interested in any feedback, including
>yours. So far, it's been the only feedback.
>
>Not everyone shares this "monolithic is better" belief. <snip>
This monolithic versus bits_and_pieces argument does not make much
sense, unless you take into account the intended audience as well as
the structure of the program itself. If you are, for instance,
supplying ignorant hordes with just another mind-numbing game, then it
is probably safer and highly advisable to lump everything together,
otherwise it will get broken or lost. On the other hand, if your
clientele are, say, relatively sophisticated Euphorians, and the
package happens to be perhaps one of your toolkits, then it is clearly
preferable to leave it in its original form with ready access to all
bits and pieces. Unless, of course, the application requires a special
layout, like distribution of components into specific directories etc,
then you really need a reliable installation program, which is a
related, but not necessarily the same story.
>Although I do *no* compression, and the format is (intentionally) easy
>to crack, it would not be difficult to change it so it provided some
>measure of security. For example, you could change the routine to hide
>the file names, and add compression (such as the Huffman coding). So it
>could be part of a security feature.
A agree with you here, in fact it is a favorite theory of mine, that
the security of any encryption is very much dependant on the removal
of all redundancies. In other words, you can get away with a
relatively unsophisticated encoding scheme if it is applied over a
very good compression.
>I dislike the word 'nauseating.' Please don't use on-informational words
I hate it too. I do not think I meant it in its primary sense. It
appeared to me you guys were going repeatedly over the same ground, in
circles, heads spinning, with strange incantations: inheritance,
polymorphism, information hiding, instantiation... Jiri
8. Re: zip etc
Jiri Babor wrote:
>Help me some more! Show me, for example, a single contribution on the
>Official Euphoria Page that would significantly benefit from the use
>of EDOM, and I'll eat my (proverbial) hat. You can also include the
>Archives, but let us do the rest in private; the public already had
>their laugh and I do not want to bore them with the gory details.
I am making a program that benefits greatly from Ralf's EDOM. It's a
databaseprog that contains several nested sequences of different content,
branches and length. At first I used the normal get(), but it was too slow,
and when I tried EDOM it did the job about 20 times faster. It saved me a
lot of work (with making an alternative way of saving data). Although my
program isn't at the euphoria page (and never will) it does benefit
significantly from EDOM.
Einar Mogen
9. Re: zip etc
Einar Mogen wrote:
>I am making a program that benefits greatly from Ralf's EDOM. It's a
It takes a very brave man indeed, or a complete fool to support Ralf
in this forum...
Good on you, Einar, just joking. Your game also looks better every time I
glance at it, quite impressive already. Jiri
