Related
I created expect script for customer and i fear to customize it like he want without returning to me so I tried to encrypt it but i didn't find a way for it
Then I tried to convert it to excutable but some commands was recognized by active tcl like "send" command even it is working perfectly on red hat
So is there a way to protect my script to be reading?
Thanks
It's usually enough to just package the code in a form that the user can't directly look inside. Even the smallest of speed-bump stops them.
You can use sdx qwrap to parcel your script up into a starkit. Those are reasonably resistant to random user poking, while being still technically open (the sdx tool is freely available, after all). You can convert the .kit file it creates into an executable by merging it with a packaged runtime.
In short, it's basically like this (with some complexity glossed over):
tclkit sdx.kit qwrap myapp.tcl
tclkit sdx.kit unwrap myapp.kit
# Copy additional assets into myapp.vfs if you need to
tclkit sdx.kit wrap myapp.exe -runtime C:\path\to\tclkit.exe
More discussion is here, the tclkit runtimes are here, and sdx itself can be obtained in .kit-packaged form here. Note that the runtime you use to run sdx does not need to be the same that you package; you can deploy code for other platforms than the one you are running from. This is a packaging phase action, not a compilation or linking.
Against more sophisticated users (i.e., not Joe Ordinary User) you'll want the Tcl Compiler out of the ActiveState TclDevKit. It's a code-obscurer formally (it doesn't actually improve the performance of anything) and the TDK isn't particularly well supported any more, but it's the main current solution for commercial protection of Tcl code. I'm on a small team working on a true compiler that will effectively offer much stronger protection, but that's not yet released (and really isn't ready yet).
One way is to store the essential code running in your server as back-end. Just give the user a fron-end application to do the requests. This way essential processes are on your control, and user cannot access that code.
I'm working on a project now in which I configure the cabal file to build several executables which share the library built by the same cabal file. The cabal project is structured much like this one, with one library section followed by several executable sections that include this library in their build-depends sections.
I'm using this approach so I can make common functions available to any number of executables, and create more executables easily as needed.
Yet in his Monad Reader article on Hoogle p.33, Neil Mitchell advocates bundling up Haskell projects into a single executable with multiple modes (e.g. by using Neil Mitchell's CmdArgs library.) So there might be one mode to start a web server, another mode to query the database from the command line, etc. Quote:
Provide one executable
Version 3 had four executable programs – one to generate ranking
information, one to do command line searching, one to do web
searching, and one to do regression testing. Version 4 has one
executable, which does all the above and more, controlled by flags.
There are many advantages to providing only one end program – it
reduces the chance of code breaking without noticing it, it makes the
total file size smaller by not duplicating the Haskell run-time system,
it decreases the number of commands users need to learn. The move to
one multipurpose executable seems to be a common theme, which tools
such as darcs and hpc both being based on one command with multiple
modes.
Is a single multimode executable really the better way to go? Are there countervailing reasons to stick with separate executables sharing the same library?
Personally, I'm more of a fan of the Unix philosophy "write programs that do one thing and do it well". However there are reasons for doing either way, so the only reasonable answer here is: it depends.
One example where it makes senses to bundle everything into same executable, is when you're targeting a platform that is very limited on resources (e.g, embedded system). This is the approach taken by BusyBox.
On the other hand if you divide into multiple executables, you give your clients the option of just using those that matter to them. With a single executable, even if your client really just wanted one functionality, he'll have no way to get rid of the extra baggage.
I'm sure there are a lot of more reasons for going either way, but this just goes to show that there's no definitive answer. It depends on the use case.
I'm having to build gnu make from source for reasons too complicated to explain here.
I noticed to build it I require the make command itself, in the traditional fashion:
./configure
make install
So what if I didn't have the make binary already? Where did the first ever make binary come from?
From the same place the first gcc binary came from.
The first make was created probably using a shell script to do the build. After that, make would "make" itself.
It's a notable achievement in systems development when the platform becomes "self-hosting". That is the platform can build itself.
Things like "make make" and "gcc gcc.c".
Many language writers will create their language in another language (say, C) and when they have moved it far enough along, they will use that original bootstrap compiler to write a new compiler in the original language. Finally, they discard the original.
Back in the day, a friend was working on a debugger for OS/2, notable for being a multi-tasking operating system at the time. And he would regale about the times when they would be debugging the debugger, and find a bug. So, they would debug the debugger debugging the debugger. It's a novel concept and goes to the heart of computing and abstraction.
Inevitably, it all boils back to when someone keyed in something through a hardwire key pad or some other switches to get an initial program loaded. Then they leveraged that program to do other work, and it all just grows from there.
Stuart Feldman, then at AT&T, wrote the source code for make around the time of 7th Edition UNIX™, and used manual compilation (or maybe a shell script) until make was working well enough to be used to build itself. You can find the UNIX Programmer's Manual for 7th Edition online, and in particular, the original paper describing the original version of make, dated August 1978.
make is just one convenience tool. It is still possible to invoke cc, ld, etc. manually or via other scripting tools.
If you're building GNU make, have a look at build.sh in the source tree after running configure:
# Shell script to build GNU Make in the absence of any `make' program.
# build.sh. Generated from build.sh.in by configure.
Compiling C programs is not the only way to produce an executable file. The first make executable (or more notably the C compiler itself) could for example be an assembly program, or it could be hand coded in machine code. It could also be cross compiled on a completely different system.
The essence of make is that it is a simplified way of running some commands.
To make the first make, the author had to manually act as make, and run gcc or whatever toolset was available, rather than having it run automatically.
Is there a programming language which can be programmed entirely in interactive mode, without needing to write files which are interpreted or compiled. Think maybe something like IRB for Ruby, but a system which is designed to let you write the whole program from the command line.
I assume you are looking for something similar to how BASIC used to work (boot up to a BASIC prompt and start coding).
IPython allows you to do this quite intuitively. Unix shells such as Bash use the same concept, but you cannot re-use and save your work nearly as intuitively as with IPython. Python is also a far better general-purpose language.
Edit: I was going to type up some examples and provide some links, but the IPython interactive tutorial seems to do this a lot better than I could. Good starting points for what you are looking for are the sections on source code handling tips and lightweight version control. Note this tutorial doesn't spell out how to do everything you are looking for precisely, but it does provide a jumping off point to understand the interactive features on the IPython shell.
Also take a look at the IPython "magic" reference, as it provides a lot of utilities that do things specific to what you want to do, and allows you to easily define your own. This is very "meta", but the example that shows how to create an IPython magic function is probably the most concise example of a "complete application" built in IPython.
Smalltalk can be programmed entirely interactively, but I wouldn't call the smalltalk prompt a "command line". Most lisp environments are like this as well. Also postscript (as in printers) if memory serves.
Are you saying that you want to write a program while never seeing more code than what fits in the scrollback buffer of your command window?
There's always lisp, the original alternative to Smalltalk with this characteristic.
The only way to avoid writing any files is to move completely to a running interactive environment. When you program this way (that is, interactively such as in IRB or F# interactive), how do you distribute your programs? When you exit IRB or F# interactive console, you lose all code you interactively wrote.
Smalltalk (see modern implementation such as Squeak) solves this and I'm not aware of any other environment where you could fully avoid files. The solution is that you distribute an image of running environment (which includes your interactively created program). In Smalltalk, these are called images.
Any unix shell conforms to your question. This goes from bash, sh, csh, ksh to tclsh for TCL or wish for TK GUI writing.
As already mentioned, Python has a few good interactive shells, I would recommend bpython for starters instead of ipython, the advantage of bpython here is the support for autocompletion and help dialogs to help you know what arguments the function accepts or what it does (if it has docstrings).
Screenshots: http://bpython-interpreter.org/screenshots/
This is really a question about implementations, not languages, but
Smalltalk (try out the Squeak version) keeps all your work in an "interactive workspace", but it is graphical and not oriented toward the command line.
APL, which was first deployed on IBM 360 and 370 systems, was entirely interactive, using a command line on a modified IBM Selectric typewriter! Your APL functions were kept in a "workspace" which did not at all resemble an ordinary file.
Many, many language implementations come with pure command-line interactive interpreters, like say Standard ML of New Jersey, but because they don't offer any sort of persistent namespace (i.e., when you exit the program, all your work is lost), I don't think they should really count.
Interestingly, the prime movers behind Smalltalk and APL (Kay and Iverson respectively) both won Turing Awards. (Iverson got his Turing award after being denied tenure at Harvard.)
TCL can be programmed entirely interactivly, and you can cetainly define new tcl procs (or redefine existing ones) without saving to a file.
Of course if you are developing and entire application at some point you do want to save to a file, else you lose everything. Using TCLs introspective abilities its relatively easy to dump some or all of the current interpreter state into a tcl file (I've written a proc to make this easier before, however mostly I would just develop in the file in the first place, and have a function in the application to resources itself if its source changes).
Not sure about that, but this system is impressively interactive: http://rigsomelight.com/2014/05/01/interactive-programming-flappy-bird-clojurescript.html
Most variations of Lisp make it easy to save your interactive work product as program files, since code is just data.
Charles Simonyi's Intentional Programming concept might be part way there, too, but it's not like you can go and buy that yet. The Intentional Workbench project may be worth exploring.
Many Forths can be used like this.
Someone already mentioned Forth but I would like to elaborate a bit on the history of Forth. Traditionally, Forth is a programming language which is it's own operating system. The traditional Forth saves the program directly onto disk sectors without using a "real" filesystem. It could afford to do that because it didn't ran directly on the CPU without an operating system so it didn't need to play nice.
Indeed, some implementations have Forth as not only the operating system but also the CPU (a lot of more modern stack based CPUs are in fact designed as Forth machines).
In the original implementation of Forth, code is always compiled each time a line is entered and saved on disk. This is feasible because Forth is very easy to compile. You just start the interpreter, play around with Forth defining functions as necessary then simply quit the interpreter. The next time you start the interpreter again all your previous functions are still there. Of course, not all modern implementations of Forth works this way.
Clojure
It's a functional Lisp on the JVM. You can connect to a REPL server called nREPL, and from there you can start writing code in a text file and loading it up interactively as you go.
Clojure gives you something akin to interactive unit testing.
I think Clojure is more interactive then other Lisps because of it's strong emphasis of the functional paradigm. It's easier to hot-swap functions when they are pure.
The best way to try it out is here: http://web.clojurerepl.com/
ELM
ELM is probably the most interactive you can get that I know of. It's a very pure functional language with syntax close to Haskell. What makes it special is that it's designed around a reactive model that allows hot-swapping(modifying running code(functions or values)) of code. The reactive bit makes it that whenever you change one thing, everything is re-evaluated.
Now ELM is compiled to HTML-CSS-JavaScript. So you won't be able to use it for everything.
ELM gives you something akin to interactive integration testing.
The best way to try it out is here: http://elm-lang.org/try
Recently, I switched my development environment from Windows to Linux. So far, I have only used Visual Studio for C++ development, so many concepts, like make and Autotools, are new to me. I have read the GNU makefile documentation and got almost an idea about it. But I am kind of confused about Autotools.
As far as I know, makefiles are used to make the build process easier.
Why do we need tools like Autotools just for creating the makefiles? Since all knows how to create a makefile, I am not getting the real use of Autotools.
What is the standard? Do we need to use tools like this or would just handwritten makefiles do?
You are talking about two separate but intertwined things here:
Autotools
GNU coding standards
Within Autotools, you have several projects:
Autoconf
Automake
Libtool
Let's look at each one individually.
Autoconf
Autoconf easily scans an existing tree to find its dependencies and create a configure script that will run under almost any kind of shell. The configure script allows the user to control the build behavior (i.e. --with-foo, --without-foo, --prefix, --sysconfdir, etc..) as well as doing checks to ensure that the system can compile the program.
Configure generates a config.h file (from a template) which programs can include to work around portability issues. For example, if HAVE_LIBPTHREAD is not defined, use forks instead.
I personally use Autoconf on many projects. It usually takes people some time to get used to m4. However, it does save time.
You can have makefiles inherit some of the values that configure finds without using automake.
Automake
By providing a short template that describes what programs will be built and what objects need to be linked to build them, Makefiles that adhere to GNU coding standards can automatically be created. This includes dependency handling and all of the required GNU targets.
Some people find this easier. I prefer to write my own makefiles.
Libtool
Libtool is a very cool tool for simplifying the building and installation of shared libraries on any Unix-like system. Sometimes I use it; other times (especially when just building static link objects) I do it by hand.
There are other options too, see StackOverflow question Alternatives to Autoconf and Autotools?.
Build automation & GNU coding standards
In short, you really should use some kind of portable build configuration system if you release your code to the masses. What you use is up to you. GNU software is known to build and run on almost anything. However, you might not need to adhere to such (and sometimes extremely pedantic) standards.
If anything, I'd recommend giving Autoconf a try if you're writing software for POSIX systems. Just because Autotools produce part of a build environment that's compatible with GNU standards doesn't mean you have to follow those standards (many don't!) :) There are plenty of other options, too.
Edit
Don't fear m4 :) There is always the Autoconf macro archive. Plenty of examples, or drop in checks. Write your own or use what's tested. Autoconf is far too often confused with Automake. They are two separate things.
First of all, the Autotools are not an opaque build system but a loosely coupled tool-chain, as tinkertim already pointed out. Let me just add some thoughts on Autoconf and Automake:
Autoconf is the configuration system that creates the configure script based on feature checks that are supposed to work on all kinds of platforms. A lot of system knowledge has gone into its m4 macro database during the 15 years of its existence. On the one hand, I think the latter is the main reason Autotools have not been replaced by something else yet. On the other hand, Autoconf used to be far more important when the target platforms were more heterogeneous and Linux, AIX, HP-UX, SunOS, ..., and a large variety of different processor architecture had to be supported. I don't really see its point if you only want to support recent Linux distributions and Intel-compatible processors.
Automake is an abstraction layer for GNU Make and acts as a Makefile generator from simpler templates. A number of projects eventually got rid of the Automake abstraction and reverted to writing Makefiles manually because you lose control over your Makefiles and you might not need all the canned build targets that obfuscate your Makefile.
Now to the alternatives (and I strongly suggest an alternative to Autotools based on your requirements):
CMake's most notable achievement is replacing AutoTools in KDE. It's probably the closest you can get if you want to have Autoconf-like functionality without m4 idiosyncrasies. It brings Windows support to the table and has proven to be applicable in large projects. My beef with CMake is that it is still a Makefile-generator (at least on Linux) with all its immanent problems (e.g. Makefile debugging, timestamp signatures, implicit dependency order).
SCons is a Make replacement written in Python. It uses Python scripts as build control files allowing very sophisticated techniques. Unfortunately, its configuration system is not on par with Autoconf. SCons is often used for in-house development when adaptation to specific requirements is more important than following conventions.
If you really want to stick with Autotools, I strongly suggest to read Recursive Make Considered Harmful (archived) and write your own GNU Makefile configured through Autoconf.
The answers already provided here are good, but I'd strongly recommend not taking the advice to write your own makefile if you have anything resembling a standard C/C++ project. We need the autotools instead of handwritten makefiles because a standard-compliant makefile generated by automake offers a lot of useful targets under well-known names, and providing all these targets by hand is tedious and error-prone.
Firstly, writing a Makefile by hand seems a great idea at first, but most people will not bother to write more than the rules for all, install and maybe clean. automake generates dist, distcheck, clean, distclean, uninstall and all these little helpers. These additional targets are a great boon to the sysadmin that will eventually install your software.
Secondly, providing all these targets in a portable and flexible way is quite error-prone. I've done a lot of cross-compilation to Windows targets recently, and the autotools performed just great. In contrast to most hand-written files, which were mostly a pain in the ass to compile. Mind you, it is possible to create a good Makefile by hand. But don't overestimate yourself, it takes a lot of experience and knowledge about a bunch of different systems, and automake creates great Makefiles for you right out of the box.
Edit: And don't be tempted to use the "alternatives". CMake and friends are a horror to the deployer because they aren't interface-compatible to configure and friends. Every half-way competent sysadmin or developer can do great things like cross-compilation or simple things like setting a prefix out of his head or with a simple --help with a configure script. But you are damned to spend an hour or three when you have to do such things with BJam. Don't get me wrong, BJam is probably a great system under the hood, but it's a pain in the ass to use because there are almost no projects using it and very little and incomplete documentation. autoconf and automake have a huge lead here in terms of established knowledge.
So, even though I'm a bit late with this advice for this question: Do yourself a favor and use the autotools and automake. The syntax might be a bit strange, but they do a way better job than 99% of the developers do on their own.
For small projects or even for large projects that only run on one platform, handwritten makefiles are the way to go.
Where autotools really shine is when you are compiling for different platforms that require different options. Autotools is frequently the brains behind the typical
./configure
make
make install
compilation and install steps for Linux libraries and applications.
That said, I find autotools to be a pain and I've been looking for a better system. Lately I've been using bjam, but that also has its drawbacks. Good luck finding what works for you.
Autotools are needed because Makefiles are not guaranteed to work the same across different platforms. If you handwrite a Makefile, and it works on your machine, there is a good chance that it won't on mine.
Do you know what unix your users will be using? Or even which distribution of Linux? Do you know where they want software installed? Do you know what tools they have, what architecture they want to compile on, how many CPUs they have, how much RAM and disk might be available to them?
The *nix world is a cross-platform landscape, and your build and install tools need to deal with that.
Mind you, the auto* tools date from an earlier epoch, and there are many valid complaints about them, but the several projects to replace them with more modern alternatives are having trouble developing a lot of momentum.
Lots of things are like that in the *nix world.
Autotools is a disaster.
The generated ./configure script checks for features that have not been present on any Unix system for last 20 years or so. To do this, it spends a huge amount of time.
Running ./configure takes for ages. Although modern server CPUs can have even dozens of cores, and there may be several such CPUs per server, the ./configure is single-threaded. We still have enough years of Moore's law left that the number of CPU cores will go way up as a function of time. So, the time ./configure takes will stay approximately constant whereas parallel build times reduce by a factor of 2 every 2 years due to Moore's law. Or actually, I would say the time ./configure takes might even increase due to increasing software complexity taking advantage of improved hardware.
The mere act of adding just one file to your project requires you to run automake, autoconf and ./configure which will take ages, and then you'll probably find that since some important files have changed, everything will be recompiled. So add just one file, and make -j${CPUCOUNT} recompiles everything.
And about make -j${CPUCOUNT}. The generated build system is a recursive one. Recursive make has for a long amount of time been considered harmful.
Then when you install the software that has been compiled, you'll find that it doesn't work. (Want proof? Clone protobuf repository from Github, check out commit 9f80df026933901883da1d556b38292e14836612, install it to a Debian or Ubuntu system, and hey presto: protoc: error while loading shared libraries: libprotoc.so.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory -- since it's in /usr/local/lib and not /usr/lib; workaround is to do export LD_RUN_PATH=/usr/local/lib before typing make).
The theory is that by using autotools, you could create a software package that can be compiled on Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and other operating systems. The fact? Every non-Linux system to build packages from source has numerous patch files in their repository to work around autotools bugs. Just take a look at e.g. FreeBSD /usr/ports: it's full of patches. So, it would have been as easy to create a small patch for a non-autotools build system on a per project basis than to create a small patch for an autotools build system on a per project basis. Or perhaps even easier, as standard make is much easier to use than autotools.
The fact is, if you create your own build system based on standard make (and make it inclusive and not recursive, following the recommendations of the "Recursive make considered harmful" paper), things work in a much better manner. Also, your build time goes down by an order of magnitude, perhaps even two orders of magnitude if your project is very small project of 10-100 C language files and you have dozens of cores per CPU and multiple CPUs. It's also much easier to interface custom automatic code generation tools with a custom build system based on standard make instead of dealing with the m4 mess of autotools. With standard make, you can at least type a shell command into the Makefile.
So, to answer your question: why use autotools? Answer: there is no reason to do so. Autotools has been obsolete since when commercial Unix has become obsolete. And the advent of multi-core CPUs has made autotools even more obsolete. Why programmers haven't realized that yet, is a mystery. I'll happily use standard make on my build systems, thank you. Yes, it takes some amount of work to generate the dependency files for C language header inclusion, but the amount of work is saved by not having to fight with autotools.
I dont feel I am an expert to answer this but still give you a bit analogy with my experience.
Because upto some extent it is similar to why we should write Embedded Codes in C language(High Level language) rather then writing in Assembly Language.
Both solves the same purpose but latter is more lenghty, tedious ,time consuming and more error prone(unless you know ISA of the processor very well) .
Same is the case with Automake tool and writing your own makefile.
Writing Makefile.am and configure.ac is pretty simple than writing individual project Makefile.