Peter wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:41 pm
But since using QLiberator brings no speed advantage, I wonder if we could work out a way to use your software in an uncompiled fashion, should fixing QLiberator fail. I understand that you do not wish to publish your sourcecode, which is perfectly okay. But if there was a way to obfuscate the sources, could you image to re-release a few of your programs uncompiled?
I'll think about this to see if it's easy enough to do without too much change to the programs.
I'm already aware of a few issues which would need to be addressed for both Qdock and Launchpad to run as interpreted SBASIC jobs rather than compiled executables. Current versions of both Launchpad and QDock sources can't run as SBASIC job, they were developed in Job 0 BASIC with no thought given to running as stand-alone SBASIC jobs at the time.
Ideally, I'd like to get the sources to a position where it's easy to make and maintain both single-file executables (for most users) and one which runs as an SBASIC job until the cache issues are resolved.
Launchpad in particular is a decades old program which ideally needs a brand new version to bring it up to date, if ever I have the time, energy and motivation. I think of Launchpad as "QL bloatware" after two decades of changes, though it continues to work better after two decades than I expected it to.
The real problem for me is my current mental exhaustion - ongoing very draining family issues and very severe insomnia since having 'flu in December - and just sheer lack of time (never retire, you just end up getting busier than ever).
I'd probably need to stipulate that apart from genuine bug reports I'd not enter into any correspondence at all about the sources - tinker with it and you're on your own. That's the real reason for not releasing sources so far - fear of what happens when people start to tinker beyond their abilities. That way, there's no need to 'obfuscate' sources.
While we initially try to focus on finding any issue with Q-Liberator, I'll see if I can use that time to get my sources into a suitable condition that I can produce both versions fairly easily. Knowing my luck, when I do, the QLib issue will be resolved!
Derek_Stewart wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:39 pm
No existing software should be withdrawn especially as such high quality as Q-Dock
Why, thank you Derek, very kind of you!
Can I please make a polite request? That with this thread, you all try to make it clear you're going on about the "QLib versus Cache" subject, not just running down my software. I've had messages asking me 'when I'm going to fix my programs', as if it's my fault. Focusing on QDock seems to have conveyed to people that it's a fault in my program for some reason, whereas in truth I know we're trying to first resolve any possible issues with QLib (assuming there are any!) before we move on to specific individual software. That's why I offered to withdraw the software - "I can do without this" - I'm fragile at the moment, and writing this in a rare moment in January when I've felt up to writing in response to something like this.