Boost

[woodbrian77]

Op 01-Feb-14 17:16, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

I'd hardly call that pioneering.



Springfuse makes rather generic claims, the kind of marketing speak one
expects for just about any software development tool. And above all it
still not answers the questions how your product differentiates itself
from competing, well established, solutions.

There are more specifics here

http://webEbenezer.net/comparison.html

..

Ask yourself what is the benefit of online code generation for the
client.

Longevity is an important factor. Users need
tools that will outlast their projects. Unlike
most of our competitors, we have a business model
that's based on on line code generation. "A fool
with a plan can outsmart a genius with no plan."
T. Boone Pickens

I get the feeling some are surprised by how a
small company like Ebenezer Enterprises is
able to outsmart bigger comptetitors.
Recall the story of David against Goliath.
David, using a new technology, took down
the more established Goliath. Is on line
code generation the new slingshot?

If it is the only option for code generation it would be a
considered to be a serious disadvantage by many because:
1. It undesirable to make your build process dependant on some external
service not under your own control;
2. But more importantly...what if the company that provides the online
service goes out of business or just decides to pull the plug?

Sorry if you don't like it, but this is the
way things are headed. Ebenezer Enterprises
is in better shape today than ever. This is
from our website:

I'm willing to donate 15 hours/week for six months
to a project that uses the C++ Middleware Writer.

Also I'll pay $500 and give a $1,000 investment in
Ebenezer Enterprises to someone who helps me find
someone interested in this. I'll pay the $500
after working for four months on the project.
Ebenezer Enteprises works to reward investments to
3 times their original amount. So the investment
would result in between $0 and $3,000, depending
on how things go for the company.

----------------------------------------------

We make that offer to help people overcome fears
they may have about working with a small company
to provide a service. We'll hold your hand and
help you build the software you want to build.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[woodbrian77]

Longevity is an important factor.

Another factor is simplifying the development
process. Some competitors expect you to
download huge libraries and maintain them.
"Oops. Sorry, there's a bug in such and such.
Please patch your install ..."

With on line code generation, we maintain the
installs (versions) for you. So there's no more
wondering if there's a fix you don't know about
or if your installation has been corrupted due
to a patching error or incompetence.



Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us.
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[Dombo]

Op 01-Feb-14 19:34, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

Longevity is an important factor. Users need
tools that will outlast their projects. Unlike
most of our competitors, we have a business model
that's based on on line code generation.

Longevity of the tools is exactly the reason is why relying on some
online tool is generally not a good idea for the reasons I stated in my
previous post. Again: what is the benefit of online code generation for
the client?

I get the feeling some are surprised by how a
small company like Ebenezer Enterprises is
able to outsmart bigger comptetitors.
Recall the story of David against Goliath.
David, using a new technology, took down
the more established Goliath. Is on line
code generation the new slingshot?

I've seen very little to suggest that you are outsmarting anyone.

Sorry if you don't like it, but this is the
way things are headed. Ebenezer Enterprises
is in better shape today than ever. This is
from our website:

I'm willing to donate 15 hours/week for six months
to a project that uses the C++ Middleware Writer.

Also I'll pay $500 and give a $1,000 investment in
Ebenezer Enterprises to someone who helps me find
someone interested in this. I'll pay the $500
after working for four months on the project.
Ebenezer Enteprises works to reward investments to
3 times their original amount. So the investment
would result in between $0 and $3,000, depending
on how things go for the company.

That sounds more like a desperate company to me than a company in good
shape. Add to that an amateurish website. Not the kind of company you
would want to rely on to provide some online service.

 

[Dombo]

Op 01-Feb-14 19:54, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

Another factor is simplifying the development
process. Some competitors expect you to
download huge libraries and maintain them.
"Oops. Sorry, there's a bug in such and such.
Please patch your install ..."

At least the client has the option to decided whether or not to install
the patch or not. There is always a risk with updates, updates not only
fix bugs but quite often also introduce new bugs. If you are not
affected by the bugs that are supposedly fixed and your project is in a
critical phase, one might want to postpone the update.

In pretty much every place I've worked it would be absolutely
unacceptable for development tools to automatically update themselves.

With on line code generation, we maintain the
installs (versions) for you. So there's no more
wondering if there's a fix you don't know about
or if your installation has been corrupted due
to a patching error or incompetence.

In other words your client can't be sure they are able to generate
exactly the same code as before, which is quite important consideration
with configuration management. And gets even worse when the external
update accidentally introduced a bug. In that case code that worked
before can suddenly stop working, and there is nothing your client can
do about it since there is no way for you client to rollback to a
previous version of your tool.

 

[Ian Collins]

Op 01-Feb-14 19:54, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

At least the client has the option to decided whether or not to install
the patch or not. There is always a risk with updates, updates not only
fix bugs but quite often also introduce new bugs. If you are not
affected by the bugs that are supposedly fixed and your project is in a
critical phase, one might want to postpone the update.

In pretty much every place I've worked it would be absolutely
unacceptable for development tools to automatically update themselves.


In other words your client can't be sure they are able to generate
exactly the same code as before, which is quite important consideration
with configuration management. And gets even worse when the external
update accidentally introduced a bug. In that case code that worked
before can suddenly stop working, and there is nothing your client can
do about it since there is no way for you client to rollback to a
previous version of your tool.

That would be a killer for any software that has to undergo any form of
certification process. Even where certification isn't a requirement,
customers often stick with a specific release and require support and
updates to that release. Just about every project I've worked on
required the tools to be archived to enable us to recreate a specific
drop when required.

 

[woodbrian77]

That would be a killer for any software that has to undergo any form of
certification process. Even where certification isn't a requirement,
customers often stick with a specific release and require support and
updates to that release. Just about every project I've worked on
required the tools to be archived to enable us to recreate a specific
drop when required.

I think you're missing the plural I used in installs and
versions. There's only one version available at this
time, but if needed we'll support more than one version.
It looks like Springfuse only supports one version also
at this time...


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[woodbrian77]

I'm not aware of any search related companies that
have opened up their search process. Well, I guess

Op 01-Feb-14 19:34, (e-mail address removed) schreef:



Longevity of the tools is exactly the reason is why relying on some
online tool is generally not a good idea for the reasons I stated in my
previous post. Again: what is the benefit of online code generation for
the client?

Are you using an open source search engine?

I've seen very little to suggest that you are outsmarting anyone.

I'm not sure where you've looked.

Some "successful" companies like Southwest Airlines
and Facebook have had to learn the hard way that
the languages they were using didn't scale well.
I've been using C++ from the beginning. Work done
on the foundation may not be easy to notice, but it
provides for the long term future of the company.

Feel free to examine the software here

http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html

That sounds more like a desperate company to me than a company in good
shape. Add to that an amateurish website. Not the kind of company you
would want to rely on to provide some online service.

I acknowledge the website could be better and the
documentation also. I've been asking for ideas on
how to improve that. If you have some specific
ideas on that, please let me know.

Beggars can't be choosers as far as who they are going
to rely on. If you are drowning and someone offers
to help you, are you going to turn them down if they
don't have a lifeguard certification?

I'm willing to help a company get their mojo back.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - John 3:16.
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[woodbrian77]

Op 01-Feb-14 19:54, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

At least the client has the option to decided whether or not to install
the patch or not. There is always a risk with updates, updates not only
fix bugs but quite often also introduce new bugs. If you are not
affected by the bugs that are supposedly fixed and your project is in a
critical phase, one might want to postpone the update.

I'm afraid the lack of choice here is due to "leaders"
like Bill Gates and Obama. "If you like your plan,
you can keep your plan." "If you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor." They lied and now your
options aren't what you wish they were? Shouldn't
have voted for Obama... Do you find a better option
than what I'm offering? As we get more users we'll
have more resources to improve the service.

In pretty much every place I've worked it would be absolutely
unacceptable for development tools to automatically update themselves.



In other words your client can't be sure they are able to generate
exactly the same code as before, which is quite important consideration
with configuration management. And gets even worse when the external
update accidentally introduced a bug. In that case code that worked
before can suddenly stop working, and there is nothing your client can
do about it since there is no way for you client to rollback to a
previous version of your tool.

I think you missed my talking about installs and versions
plural. If there's support for it, multiple versions will
be available.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "To G-d be the glory."
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[Ian Collins]

I think you're missing the plural I used in installs and
versions. There's only one version available at this
time, but if needed we'll support more than one version.
It looks like Springfuse only supports one version also
at this time...

That still wouldn't help in the situations I'm familiar with. A
technique one of my clients uses is to build their release software in a
VM and then snapshot and archive the machine. They need to know that
they can recreate any release in a reliable, reproducible, manner. You
would have to tie yourself up in all sorts of legal knots to meet their
requirements...

 

[woodbrian77]

That still wouldn't help in the situations I'm familiar with. A
technique one of my clients uses is to build their release software in a
VM and then snapshot and archive the machine. They need to know that
they can recreate any release in a reliable, reproducible, manner. You
would have to tie yourself up in all sorts of legal knots to meet their
requirements...

They could store code generated by the C++ Middleware
Writer if they wanted to.

 

[Ian Collins]

They could store code generated by the C++ Middleware
Writer if they wanted to.

That wouldn't help when a customer with a 10 year old system asks for a fix!

Anyway, the market segments I'm familiar with are probably at the more
paranoid end of the spectrum when it comes to tools. I'm sure the
majority of potential customers are more open minded when it comes to
web based tools. Just be aware of another issue I'm seeing more often:
customers wanting to know if their data will go anywhere near the US!

 

[woodbrian77]

That wouldn't help when a customer with a 10 year old system asks for a fix!

A company could ask us to store a particular version.
If we know about it, I don't see a problem with that.
There would be some administrative work around it, but
it doesn't seem like too big a deal. We'll automate
it if there's enough interest.

Anyway, the market segments I'm familiar with are probably at the more
paranoid end of the spectrum when it comes to tools. I'm sure the
majority of potential customers are more open minded when it comes to
web based tools. Just be aware of another issue I'm seeing more often:
customers wanting to know if their data will go anywhere near the US!

Other countries spy.

I would like to see the NSA's budget cut by half.
The IRS should be chopped back too.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[Ian Collins]

There are more specifics here

http://webEbenezer.net/comparison.html

Your examples return 1 from main on success, which isn't a good idea...
Use EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE.

 

[Öö Tiib]

A company could ask us to store a particular version.
If we know about it, I don't see a problem with that.
There would be some administrative work around it, but
it doesn't seem like too big a deal. We'll automate
it if there's enough interest.

They need to build tests and then patched version of
the 10 year old product. How does their build system
integrate with your online code generator? How does it
integrate now? How will it integrate 10 years later?
Will their current build system run without changes 10
years later? Are you alive 10 years later?

Most opponents of usage of Boost speak some sort of NIH
and FUD rhetoric, despite all source code is available
(including 10+ years old versions) from several sources
and heavily peer-reviewed. How you overcome that with
your service?

 

[Dombo]

Op 01-Feb-14 22:11, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

Are you using an open source search engine?

I fail to see the relevance of that question. A search engine does not
generate code to be integrated into my software. If the search engine
would change its algorithms or the company behind it pull the plug it
wouldn't affect my business much if at all, unlike a online code
generation tool which my software would depend on.

It is still not clear to me what is the benefit for the client is of
online code generation.

I'm not sure where you've looked.

I've seen your posts here, and I've looked at your website, and found
nothing to support your assertion that you are outsmarting your 'bigger
competitors'. In fact I get the impression you don't even are aware of
many of the well known alternatives for your offering out there.

The impression I get is that CMW is little more than a personal hobby
project with very little or no use from anyone else.

Some "successful" companies like Southwest Airlines
and Facebook have had to learn the hard way that
the languages they were using didn't scale well.
I've been using C++ from the beginning. Work done
on the foundation may not be easy to notice, but it
provides for the long term future of the company.

Whether C++ is the appropriate choice for Facebook or Southwest Airlines
is not the subject being discussed here. Nor does it explain why a
online tool would be better from a longevity perspective.

I acknowledge the website could be better and the
documentation also. I've been asking for ideas on
how to improve that. If you have some specific
ideas on that, please let me know.

Ask yourself what incentive people have to spend time and energy to
provide consultancy to improve your offering.

Beggars can't be choosers as far as who they are going
to rely on.

You are assuming that your potential customers are beggars. And even if
that is true (I hope for your sake it isn't) there are plenty of free-
and paid alternatives to choose from.

If you are drowning and someone offers
to help you, are you going to turn them down if they
don't have a lifeguard certification?

In your analogy I would be already surrounded by certified lifeguards.
So why would I send the certified lifeguards away in favor of someone
who is struggling to stay afloat himself?

There are already many well known and proven alternatives for what you
are offering. The question remains in what way your solution improves on
what there is already out there.

I'm willing to help a company get their mojo back.

I don't mean to be harsh, but frankly I doubt you have what it takes to
do that.

 

[Dombo]

Op 01-Feb-14 22:52, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

I'm afraid the lack of choice here is due to "leaders"
like Bill Gates and Obama.

I don't see how you can possibly blame Bill Gates and Obama for the lack
of choice when to apply a patch in your online code generation scheme.
Sounds like crazy talk to me.

 

[woodbrian77]

They need to build tests and then patched version of
the 10 year old product. How does their build system
integrate with your online code generator? How does it
integrate now? How will it integrate 10 years later?

It's the user's responsibility to tell us they want
us to save a snapshot of the service. Besides doing
that they would need to save whatever they use for
their build system. The company Ian described is
already doing that.

As far as today, I'm using make. If a dependency is
updated, a command is run that causes the generated code
to be refreshed.

I don't know how this will work ten years down
the road, but changes won't mean we can't help
someone who needs an old version of the software.
We'll save what we can, but we can't save something
that isn't part of the service. That's the user's
responsibility.

Are you alive 10 years later?

We had discussion previously of Elijah and Elisha.
Elijah trained Elisha to take over for him and
Elisha did just that. Beyond that I'm in fairly
good shape. I walk and jog for exercise. I have
regular physicals, brush my teeth twice a day and
floss once a week. I'm mostly a vegetarian and
eat healthy foods. I've never used tobacco, never
tried any drugs and drink just a little beer. I
enjoy programming and the freedom I have to make
a variety of decisions around the company. My
goal is to create the best software company in
the world.

Most opponents of usage of Boost speak some sort of NIH
and FUD rhetoric, despite all source code is available
(including 10+ years old versions) from several sources
and heavily peer-reviewed. How you overcome that with
your service?

My advice with Boost is to "chew the meat and spit
the bones." Some of Boost is really good.

I've had some peer review and welcome more of that!
We have a different model though than Boost. Boost
has only libraries I think. We have both executables
and a library. Our executables use the library so we
are first user of the code. Are you familiar with
the phrase eating your own dog food? We use code
generated by previous versions of the C++ Middleware
Writer to build new versions of it. Good projects
eat their own dog food in my opinion.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[woodbrian77]

Op 01-Feb-14 22:11, (e-mail address removed) schreef:


It is still not clear to me what is the benefit for the client is of
online code generation.

One benefit over some of the competition is automating
the creation of marshalling functions. C# and Java
have been ahead of C++ is this area, but the C++
Middleware Writer goes beyond what those languages
have by being on line.

I've seen your posts here, and I've looked at your website, and found
nothing to support your assertion that you are outsmarting your 'bigger
competitors'. In fact I get the impression you don't even are aware of
many of the well known alternatives for your offering out there.

The impression I get is that CMW is little more than a personal hobby
project with very little or no use from anyone else.

It is a small company. Recall this though from
Yeshua (aka Jesus):

He presented another parable to them, saying, "The
kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a
man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller
than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it
is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree,
so that the birds of the air come and nest in its
branches." Matthew 13:31, 32

We have taken what was once considered to be an
unusual approach, but is now understood to be the
correct approach? I mean going on line. Is
Microsoft going to abandon Office 365? Don't be
silly.

Whether C++ is the appropriate choice for Facebook or Southwest Airlines
is not the subject being discussed here. Nor does it explain why a
online tool would be better from a longevity perspective.


Ask yourself what incentive people have to spend time and energy to
provide consultancy to improve your offering.

The person who gives an answer usually learns something
by posting and they get some recognition from others
for contributing something helpful.

I don't know what everyone's motives are.
But the Bible encourages us to ask, seek and knock.
I've done that and have gotten a lot of helpful advice
along the way. Roughly seven years ago we had a web-
based interface to the code generator. That seemed
like the way to go 10+ years ago. Then someone on
a Boost list suggested that it should be something
that could be integrated into build environments. It
didn't take me too long to figure out that was right.

I have a track record of contemplating advice and
taking what makes sense to me and bringing it to
fruition. Slow and steady wins the race.

You are assuming that your potential customers are beggars. And even if
that is true (I hope for your sake it isn't) there are plenty of free-
and paid alternatives to choose from.

The Statue of Liberty has this: "Give us your tired,
your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
There are many friendly, intelligent poor people out
there. They don't have much money, but that's fine.
They have the time and the desire to buid things. We're
here to help them.

I'm mostly familiar with free alternatives. Paid
alternatives have a hard time gaining traction with
the poor.

If a company wants to use a binary copy of the C++
Middleware Writer, I'm happy to talk to them about that.
It isn't free though in that case.

In your analogy I would be already surrounded by certified lifeguards.
So why would I send the certified lifeguards away in favor of someone
who is struggling to stay afloat himself?

The company is in better shape than ever. The company has
no debts. Some well known companies have more debt than
assets. We have some money for new hardware this year.

There are already many well known and proven alternatives for what you
are offering. The question remains in what way your solution improves on
what there is already out there.

Ebenezer Enterprises has been built from the beginning
with an understanding of the cyclical (Purim, Pesach, ...
Sukkot, Hanukkah ...) nature of reality. I don't think the
competition can say the same thing.
See also my previous reply about how we eat our own dog food.
Boost wasn't built that way.

I don't mean to be harsh, but frankly I doubt you have what it takes to
do that.

I look forward to showing otherwise.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "It's not the size of the dog
in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog."
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[Öö Tiib]

My advice with Boost is to "chew the meat and spit
the bones." Some of Boost is really good.

I've had some peer review and welcome more of that!

You did not perhaps understand what I asked.
* Boost is better peer reviewed than most code.
Problem: lot of developers use NIH policy as excuse to
use their own, far crappier code.
* Boost is all open and available with "do what you want"
license. Documentation is not best but is far over average.
Problem: FUD; something feels still non-transparent.
So where is edge of yours here?

We have a different model though than Boost. Boost
has only libraries I think. We have both executables
and a library.

Boost has rather small amount of executables (Build,
Wave and few others) indeed and code generation is
done mostly by meta-programming (that I don't like).
The functionality and flexibility of executables delivered
with Boost is likely larger than yours.

I feel that you avoid answering what it is that your
*CMW* *does* *better* than competition for example
Protocol Buffers. Where is the edge from what you are
above?

Being almost as good is bad argument. Why you
drag us into discussing wealth of your company?
Google is in OK shape. With such competitors it is
nonsense to discuss IMHO.

 

[Dombo]

Op 03-Feb-14 7:04, (e-mail address removed) schreef:

One benefit over some of the competition is automating
the creation of marshalling functions. C# and Java
have been ahead of C++ is this area,

You mean like CORBA and DCOM have been doing over 20 years (well before
Java and C# even existed)? Hardly novel or innovative, and also
unrelated to the question what the benefit of online code generation is
for the customer.

but the C++ Middleware Writer goes beyond what those languages
have by being on line.

Again, what is the benefit of 'being online' as opposed to running an
IDL compiler locally?

It is a small company.

Since you avoid the question about the user base I think it is safe to
assume that the user base is small or non-existent.

Recall this though from Yeshua (aka Jesus): <snip>

You can quote the bible all you like, but that isn't going to make the
questions and concerns magically go away, nor does it strengthen your
argument.

We have taken what was once considered to be an
unusual approach, but is now understood to be the
correct approach? I mean going on line.

Providing services online is hardly novel or unusual; the only unusual
about your offering is that in your case there seems to be no obvious
advantage for the customer to do it online.

Is Microsoft going to abandon Office 365? Don't be silly.

I never mentioned Microsoft, Office 365, or even suggested that
Microsoft is going to abandon it. Why do you feel the need to resort to
strawman tactics instead of just answering a simple question?

The fact that there a quite a few examples where providing online/cloud
services does make sense, doesn't mean it makes sense for what you are
offering. As of yet you still haven't provided a convincing argument for
online code generation.

The person who gives an answer usually learns something
by posting and they get some recognition from others
for contributing something helpful.

Probably true for technical problems. But as far as websites and
documentation goes there are plenty of examples. Don't expect others to
do your work for you.

I don't know what everyone's motives are.
But the Bible encourages us to ask, seek and knock.

The bible expects us to be gullible.

I've done that and have gotten a lot of helpful advice
along the way. Roughly seven years ago we had a web-
based interface to the code generator. That seemed
like the way to go 10+ years ago. Then someone on
a Boost list suggested that it should be something
that could be integrated into build environments. It
didn't take me too long to figure out that was right.

I have a track record of contemplating advice and
taking what makes sense to me and bringing it to
fruition. Slow and steady wins the race.

It seems that your competition is years, if not decades, ahead of you,
if you go too slow you won't live long enough to make it to the finish.

Theremay very well be a niche where you might do better than your
competition. But to identify that niche you do have understand what the
competition is and what their strengths and weaknesses are on one side,
and the needs of your (potential) customers on the other side. You seem
to be quite unfamiliar with either side.

The Statue of Liberty has this: "Give us your tired,
your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
There are many friendly, intelligent poor people out
there. They don't have much money, but that's fine.
They have the time and the desire to buid things. We're
here to help them.

Quoting irrelevant pieces of text isn't going to convince anyone, it
only creates the impression you are avoiding the question.

I'm mostly familiar with free alternatives. Paid
alternatives have a hard time gaining traction with
the poor.

More money is to be made from those who can afford. That being said it
is not clear to me in what area CMW excels compared to the free or paid
alternatives.

If a company wants to use a binary copy of the C++
Middleware Writer, I'm happy to talk to them about that.
It isn't free though in that case.

Fair enough, don't think anyone is expecting you to give your work away
for free. However based on what I've seen here and on your website, I
doubt you'll convince many to choose your offering over the
alternatives, no matter what you charge.

The company is in better shape than ever. The company has
no debts.

I wonder if your company generates any income at all (the allowance you
get from your mum doesn't count).

Some well known companies have more debt than
assets.

Sure, and if you have reasons to believe they might go bankrupt in the
near future you certainly don't want to be dependent on some online
service they might provide.

We have some money for new hardware this year.

Whoop-de-do. You really think statements like that are going to impress
people?

Ebenezer Enterprises has been built from the beginning
with an understanding of the cyclical (Purim, Pesach, ...
Sukkot, Hanukkah ...) nature of reality. I don't think the
competition can say the same thing.

Your competition doesn't have to because because they can provide
specific reasons why to choose their product, rather than resorting to
vague unrelated mumbo jumbo.

See also my previous reply about how we eat our own dog food.

Who is 'we' anyway?

Boost wasn't built that way.

Given the number of people working on Boost I doubt one could make
sweeping statements about how Boost was build. Personally I don't care
how it is build. I care about how well a product addresses my needs,
reliability, active developer and user community, license, support,
performance, memory footprint...etc. The fact is that (parts of) Boost
are used by great many people, and likely has seen more use by more
people than CMW ever will.

Btw. Boost is not your only competitor, certainly not your most
important competitor as far as serialization is concerned.

I look forward to showing otherwise.

I hope you will prove me wrong.