ANNOUNCE: Geek (package based compiler/loader/wrap), release 0.1

[luju...@gmail.com]

[7 Oct 2006]

ANNOUNCE: Geek (package based compiler/loader/wrap), release 0.1

~ What is it?

Geek is trying to provide a framework to help developer use tcl/tk to
write and deploy pragram. It can wrap a tcl/tk program to .EXE in
windows platform, compile tcl/tk code to TCL ByteCode and the package
management is much like java class/jar.

~ What's in 0.1

1. tclc is provided for tcl compiling.

2. gwish is provided as a special wish which can load package and tcl
bytecode.

3. gwrap is provided to easily wrap a tcl/tk program to be an
exectuable file.

4. gswish is much similar as gwish, except it is a single executable
file, no other dll/package is needed (Actually they are either
statically linked or zipped in that file).

5. gswrap is similar with gwrap, however, it is based on gswish, i.e.
The essential library is statically linked into the executable file.

~ Documents

So far there is no much document for this project, however, it is under
construction and will be available soon.

Some tips can be found at the homepage of this project.
<URL: http://geetk.sourceforge.net >

~ Availability

Geek is hosted under the geetk project at SourceForge:

<URL: http://geetk.sourceforge.net >
<URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/geetk/ >

~ Feedback

Comments is always welcome. I'd like to know the opinion about this
kind of package management, i.e. zipped and distributed package.

[Gerald W. Lester]

luju...@gmail.com wrote:
> [7 Oct 2006]
>
> ANNOUNCE: Geek (package based compiler/loader/wrap), release 0.1
>
>
> ~ What is it?
>
> Geek is trying to provide a framework to help developer use tcl/tk to
> write and deploy pragram. It can wrap a tcl/tk program to .EXE in
> windows platform, compile tcl/tk code to TCL ByteCode and the package
> management is much like java class/jar.

Do you plan to support Linux and Mac in the future?

How does the wrapping differ from StarKits?

Does the compiler generate standard Tcl Bytecode loaded via the bload
command or is this some representation of your own?

What kind of license does this use/impose?

>
> ~ What's in 0.1
>
> 1. tclc is provided for tcl compiling.
>
> 2. gwish is provided as a special wish which can load package and tcl
> bytecode.
>
> 3. gwrap is provided to easily wrap a tcl/tk program to be an
> exectuable file.
>
> 4. gswish is much similar as gwish, except it is a single executable
> file, no other dll/package is needed (Actually they are either
> statically linked or zipped in that file).
>
>
> 5. gswrap is similar with gwrap, however, it is based on gswish, i.e.
> The essential library is statically linked into the executable file.
>
> ~ Documents
>
> So far there is no much document for this project, however, it is under
> construction and will be available soon.
>
> Some tips can be found at the homepage of this project.
> <URL: http://geetk.sourceforge.net >
>
> ~ Availability
>
> Geek is hosted under the geetk project at SourceForge:
>
> <URL: http://geetk.sourceforge.net >
> <URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/geetk/ >
>
> ~ Feedback
>
> Comments is always welcome. I'd like to know the opinion about this
> kind of package management, i.e. zipped and distributed package.
>

--
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Gerald W. Lester |
|"The man who fights for his ideals is the man who is alive." - Cervantes|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[luju...@gmail.com]

Gerald W. Lester wrote:
>
> Do you plan to support Linux and Mac in the future?
>

I think it is possible to support Linux as I have some projects on the
Unix. So far I haven't thought about Mac.

> How does the wrapping differ from StarKits?
>

I haven't looked StartKits before. Actually I'm much familiar with
freewrap.
And I just read several articles about StartKits a moment ago to help
answer your question.

First I should acknowledge that they have no much difference. In fact
StartKits is more complicated than this wrapping.

They are both relied on the VFS and support seperated package
management.
Personally I think the only difference is that Geek is trying to manage
the package based on the concept of jar and class path. I haven't seen
the searching mechanism about StarKits

The idea to develop the Geek comes from freewrap, since I would like to
share the package other than wrap them for every application.

Thus I think my answer would be that the Geek is a mix of StarKits and
freewrap.

I will try StarKits later to see if I can just use it or still need to
complete my wrapping. :-)

> Does the compiler generate standard Tcl Bytecode loaded via the bload
> command or is this some representation of your own?

The compiler is based on the Tcl Bytecode, however, it may not be
compatible with tbcload.
Actually, there are some data should be organized by the compiler
itself, thus I think each compiler may have some different way to
handle them.

> What kind of license does this use/impose?
>

It is under GPL.

Thanks for your comments,
Joe.

[Googie]

luju...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is under GPL.

Have you considered LGPL? GPL is kind of nasty in 'Tcl World'.

--
Pozdrawiam (Regards)!
Googie

[Googie]

Googie wrote:

> Have you considered LGPL? GPL is kind of nasty in 'Tcl World'.

Hm... I've just figured out that GPL is enough for "Development tool" -
that's not a library we have to link with ;)
Sorry for disturbing.

--
Pozdrawiam (Regards)!
Googie

[Jeff Hobbs]

Googie wrote:
> Googie wrote:
>
>> Have you considered LGPL? GPL is kind of nasty in 'Tcl World'.
>
> Hm... I've just figured out that GPL is enough for "Development tool" -
> that's not a library we have to link with ;)
> Sorry for disturbing.

Actually, the GPL is potentially dangerous for a development tool like
Geek. RMS has implied some weird interpretations for the GPL that
would, for example, mean that anything you "compile" or "wrap" with the
Geek tool would also become GPL.

--

Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy, http://www.activestate.com/

[Donal K. Fellows]

Jeff Hobbs wrote:
> Actually, the GPL is potentially dangerous for a development tool like
> Geek. RMS has implied some weird interpretations for the GPL that
> would, for example, mean that anything you "compile" or "wrap" with the
> Geek tool would also become GPL.

It's possible that GPLv2 (not "2 or later") with an explanatory note
that you intend the license to only apply to Geek itself and not the
libraries it wraps (which would have their own licenses) would be enough
to stop the most dangerous forms of infectiousness. Basically, that's
the Linux Kernel approach.

Not that I really advise it. I'd much rather see the same license as Tcl
used because then the infectiousness is utterly not an issue. But that's
perhaps just a bit influenced by my personal perspective. :-)

Donal.

[luju...@gmail.com]

Oops, I haven't thought about the license issue carefully before.
In fact, I just pick some one since I would like to develop it as an
open source.
Certainly I don't want to prevent others from using it in bussiness
need.
To be honest, sometimes I also have this kind of need.

And ... right, I think It's better to follow the Tcl/Tk Licensing
terms.
I will change the license term for Geek.

Thanks everybody.
Joe.