TDK--what advantages does it offer?
Kevin Walzer
finding it far more complicated than I expected in terms of wrapping an
application.
I understand one of its main advantages--compiling/obfuscating Tcl code.
Doing that with existing open-source tools is not impossible, but it's
cumbersome. So a point to TDK and ActiveState there. My current
starpacks don't obfuscate code; there's not much risk of end users
unwrapping the code, but it's still there.
Still, I'm quite comfortable writing command-line scripts to bundle up a
starpack with my code in it; I can do this quickly and efficiently. TDK
seems to present a more complex way of doing the same thing, and at a
not-inconsiderable cost to boot.
I guess I'm looking for recommendations/testimonials: how does TDK repay
your investment? What are its advantages over using sdx wrap myapp,kit?
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Dennis LaBelle
Have you looked at freeWrap? http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/
It automatically encrypts the files that you wrap with it.
Kevin Walzer
The main hindrance to using freewrap is that I am a Mac developer, and
freewrap isn't supported on this platform in a standard manner (the
builds available don't work for me; I need a universal binary, not
separate paltforms).
Steve Landers
> I guess I'm looking for recommendations/testimonials: how does TDK repay
> your investment? What are its advantages over using sdx wrap myapp,kit?
In order ...
- bytecompiling code for inclusion in Starkits
- the debugger
- code coverage tool
Steve
Georgios Petasis
I use the TDK for *only* wrapping applications (without even using the
obfuscator). For me the great advantage is the ActiveTcl distribution,
which I download and test my apps. Then, using TDK to wrap them ensures
that they will also run without problems (exactly as they did in my
ActiveTcl distribution used for testing).
Also, there is something else that I like: the extensions that come with
TDK. I feel more safe using them (as somebody else has checked their
stability, the binaries will cooperate with the intrp, etc)
And, it is also extremely easy to include packages in a wrap (through
the tap mechanism).
And not to mention that I am waiting for the next TDK version, will
include this teapot client/server. I hope that the server tools that
will be in the TDK will allow me to build my own server, in the hope to
add automatic updates to my (plugin-based) application :-)
What I don't like in the TDK :-) is the sparse documentation, and the
provided tools, which should have been more robust. Actually, the only
one I use frequently is the TclApp: it has a few bugs, it is not so user
friendly and I would expect to "remember" settings, previous used
wrapping options file (it does not) and of course to use tile :-)
George
Larry W. Virden
> I guess I'm looking for recommendations/testimonials: how does TDK repay
> your investment? What are its advantages over using sdx wrap myapp,kit?
I seldom use the starpack gui from TDK - my favorite piece is
tclchecker, with occasional use of tcldebugger and tclinspector.
Everyone has their own preferences.
What tools would you find useful to have as a tcl and tk developers?
Perhaps we can come up with some new ideas of things to get in TDK.
Kevin Walzer
I'm not sure, to be honest. I've gotten so ingrained with editing in
Emacs, testing in a terminal, building my own extensions, and bundling
up everything for deployment manually that, it seems, I really don't
need the more integrated environment that TDK provides. Trying to adapt
to TDK was reducing, rather than improving, my productivity and
efficiency. I guess the moral of the story is that those Unix-style
stone age tools are still really, really useful for some of us.
andr...@activestate.com
wrote:
> I use the TDK for *only* wrapping applications (without even using the
> obfuscator). For me the great advantage is the ActiveTcl distribution,
> which I download and test my apps. Then, using TDK to wrap them ensures
> that they will also run without problems (exactly as they did in my
> ActiveTcl distribution used for testing).
> Also, there is something else that I like: the extensions that come with
> TDK. I feel more safe using them (as somebody else has checked their
> stability, the binaries will cooperate with the intrp, etc)
> And, it is also extremely easy to include packages in a wrap (through
> the tap mechanism).
> And not to mention that I am waiting for the next TDK version, will
> include this teapot client/server. I hope that the server tools that
> will be in the TDK will allow me to build my own server, in the hope to
> add automatic updates to my (plugin-based) application :-)
>
> What I don't like in the TDK :-) is the sparse documentation,
May I ask you to enter bug reports at http://bugs.activestate.com
for the places where you believe the documentation could be made
better ?
> and the provided tools, which should have been more robust.
Ditto. We need reports to know where the problems of our users are.
> Actually, the only one I use frequently is the TclApp: it has a few bugs,
> it is not so user friendly
What do you dislike about the interface, and how could it be made
better ?
Also, again, http://bugs.activestate.com is the place where to tell us
about such things.
> and I would expect to "remember" settings, previous used wrapping options file (it does not)
I do not understand your request ... You can save and load wrap
projects, however your description does not sound as if you are
talking about that. Can you clarify ? Maybe add feature request at
http://bugs.activestate.com for tracking ?
> and of course to use tile :-)
The TDK 4.0 Beta 1 uses Tile. See http://activestate.com/Products/tcl_dev_kit/beta.plex
Note: Ignore the package management stuff in beta 1. I over-engineered
that part way to much and rewrote it for beta 2.
> George
Matthias Kraft
> I guess I'm looking for recommendations/testimonials: how does TDK repay
> your investment? What are its advantages over using sdx wrap myapp,kit?
Well, I regularly use tclchecker and tclcompiler. Occasionally
tclinspector and tcldebugger come in handy.
kind regards
--
Matthias Kraft
Software AG, Germany
(They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary)
(safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin)
Jeff Hobbs
> I'm testing the beta version of ActiveState's TDK and, to be honest, I'm
> finding it far more complicated than I expected in terms of wrapping an
> application.
I would not recommend TDK 4.0 beta 1 to users wanting to make wrapping
easier. In redoing the TDK to support the teapot, wrapping became all
too complex. We are rewriting this for 4.0 beta 2 (one reason it is
taking longer to come out than originally planned).
> I understand one of its main advantages--compiling/obfuscating Tcl code.
...
> I guess I'm looking for recommendations/testimonials: how does TDK repay
> your investment? What are its advantages over using sdx wrap myapp,kit?
To not give a try to the other tools in the TDK is to be risking making
your Tcl development life more difficult than necessary. I find the TDK
Inspector invaluable in day-to-day UI development. The TDK Debugger
uncovers errors you never even knew existed without ever having to
exercise all the code. The TDK Xref tool is a bit more cumbersome than
we'd like, but it provides a view of large Tcl code bases that no other
tool can provide. And that's only half the tools in the TDK ...
I am considering giving a tutorial on using all the TDK tools at the
next Tcl conference (September 24-29, 2007 in New Orleans).
--
Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy, http://www.activestate.com/