Home > Archive > Tcl > February 2007 > TDK--what advantages does it offer?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
TDK--what advantages does it offer?
|
|
| Kevin Walzer 2007-02-16, 7:09 pm |
| 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 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 2007-02-16, 10:08 pm |
| Kevin Walzer wrote:
> 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 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?
>
Have you looked at freeWrap? http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/
It automatically encrypts the files that you wrap with it.
| |
| Kevin Walzer 2007-02-16, 10:08 pm |
| Dennis LaBelle wrote:
> Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
> Have you looked at freeWrap? http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/
>
> It automatically encrypts the files that you wrap with it.
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).
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
| |
| Steve Landers 2007-02-17, 4:13 am |
| Kevin Walzer wrote:
> 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 2007-02-17, 8:09 am |
| O/H Steve Landers _γραψε:
> Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
>
> In order ...
>
> - bytecompiling code for inclusion in Starkits
> - the debugger
> - code coverage tool
>
> Steve
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 2007-02-17, 7:07 pm |
| On Feb 16, 7:13 pm, Kevin Walzer <k...@codebykevin.com> wrote:
> 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 2007-02-17, 7:07 pm |
| Larry W. Virden wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:13 pm, Kevin Walzer <k...@codebykevin.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
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.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
| |
| Jeff Hobbs 2007-02-21, 4:10 am |
| Kevin Walzer wrote:
> 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/
|
|
|
|
|