Question
-
You have to consider that those that don't have Codejock would not be able to compile it. What you can do is to extract out of the project you mentioned those bits of information that would be useful to others. Share that if you can.
-
I've used Codejock's Toolkits for years ... and have various MFC-based works that I've created and am pondering sharing ... I'm wondering, though, if I wrote an article (and let's assume it was okay or even good) ... would I get reamed for requiring a commercial product to compile it? For example, one is a pretty good clone of Internet Explorer 6 (with extras like tabbed browsing, popup blocking, automatically filling out forms, etc). However, I used Codejock to assist with the UI. It would take a lot of work to clean up the code, and write an article ... and it would probably take more than one article to explain everything ... but if in the end I'm just going to get killed for requiring Codejock to compile, that doesn't seem to make much sense for the effort. What do you think? Is it okay to post a project that requires a commercial 3rd party library to compile?
Unfortunately we don't (currently) accept articles that require commercial third party components.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Unfortunately we don't (currently) accept articles that require commercial third party components.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I've used Codejock's Toolkits for years ... and have various MFC-based works that I've created and am pondering sharing ... I'm wondering, though, if I wrote an article (and let's assume it was okay or even good) ... would I get reamed for requiring a commercial product to compile it? For example, one is a pretty good clone of Internet Explorer 6 (with extras like tabbed browsing, popup blocking, automatically filling out forms, etc). However, I used Codejock to assist with the UI. It would take a lot of work to clean up the code, and write an article ... and it would probably take more than one article to explain everything ... but if in the end I'm just going to get killed for requiring Codejock to compile, that doesn't seem to make much sense for the effort. What do you think? Is it okay to post a project that requires a commercial 3rd party library to compile?
-
I've used Codejock's Toolkits for years ... and have various MFC-based works that I've created and am pondering sharing ... I'm wondering, though, if I wrote an article (and let's assume it was okay or even good) ... would I get reamed for requiring a commercial product to compile it? For example, one is a pretty good clone of Internet Explorer 6 (with extras like tabbed browsing, popup blocking, automatically filling out forms, etc). However, I used Codejock to assist with the UI. It would take a lot of work to clean up the code, and write an article ... and it would probably take more than one article to explain everything ... but if in the end I'm just going to get killed for requiring Codejock to compile, that doesn't seem to make much sense for the effort. What do you think? Is it okay to post a project that requires a commercial 3rd party library to compile?
Just could just put up your own web site/blog somewhere, it's not much effort and you can do whatever you want (and get your own advertisement revenue on there :-)).
Wout
-
I've used Codejock's Toolkits for years ... and have various MFC-based works that I've created and am pondering sharing ... I'm wondering, though, if I wrote an article (and let's assume it was okay or even good) ... would I get reamed for requiring a commercial product to compile it? For example, one is a pretty good clone of Internet Explorer 6 (with extras like tabbed browsing, popup blocking, automatically filling out forms, etc). However, I used Codejock to assist with the UI. It would take a lot of work to clean up the code, and write an article ... and it would probably take more than one article to explain everything ... but if in the end I'm just going to get killed for requiring Codejock to compile, that doesn't seem to make much sense for the effort. What do you think? Is it okay to post a project that requires a commercial 3rd party library to compile?
Since CP won't go for it (a shame, IMO), what about contacting CodeJock and offering to write an article for them to showcase their product. They might even pay you for your efforts. Marc
-
Since CP won't go for it (a shame, IMO), what about contacting CodeJock and offering to write an article for them to showcase their product. They might even pay you for your efforts. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
a shame, IMO
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
No.
what about YES!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixturecheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/IV Support CRY- Child Relief and You/codeProject$$>
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
a shame, IMO
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article
Right you say!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixturecheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/IV Support CRY- Child Relief and You/codeProject$$>
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
a shame, IMO
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
Really? How many people use DevExpress or Infragistics? What about all those endorsements for DevExpress' XtraReports? I have a variety of code snippets that I imagine people who are interested in that product would like to see. Or what about Telerik's ASP.NET code library? When I made that post about the DateTime control and the DataGridView, one of the responses was "who uses the .NET Framework controls anyways?" Why can't we write about useful things for those components, if this statement is true, and I suspect it is? What about useful techniques and tips for other 3rd party products, like RedGate's tools or various products that help to manipulate XML? Why should we be constrained to write just about components that Microsoft provides, like SQL Server or SharePoint? There's a variety of useful articles here on SharePoint, for example. Marc
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
Really? How many people use DevExpress or Infragistics? What about all those endorsements for DevExpress' XtraReports? I have a variety of code snippets that I imagine people who are interested in that product would like to see. Or what about Telerik's ASP.NET code library? When I made that post about the DateTime control and the DataGridView, one of the responses was "who uses the .NET Framework controls anyways?" Why can't we write about useful things for those components, if this statement is true, and I suspect it is? What about useful techniques and tips for other 3rd party products, like RedGate's tools or various products that help to manipulate XML? Why should we be constrained to write just about components that Microsoft provides, like SQL Server or SharePoint? There's a variety of useful articles here on SharePoint, for example. Marc
We've been going over this exact issue in the office for two weeks solid. Our issue is that if we allow articles that rely on or promote third party products we're going to be article spammed by every software vendor, large or small, out there. In fact, my experience says that we'll get more articles from small independant guys about their no-name VB component that no one's ever heard of than we will for products like CodeJock or Telerik. The articles will certainly be ranked and filtered, but do we want the homepage swamped with articles that are merely ads for their share-ware component?
- We can force all such submissions to go through the editors but that will cause a backlog on articles with full, free source code.
- We can open it up and then not show these articles on the homepage, but just show 'fully-free'. If we did that we'd have to remove them from the RSS feeds and the newsletter too. And maybe Search as well. In which case - what's the point?
- We could allow members to filter them out using their settings. This only applies to those who have spent the time learning our system and would really put off new members before they got a chance to learn
I'm open for suggestions [BTW: here's[^] an exmple of an article that relies on a third party library. Personally I do not see this as a service to the community as a whole]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
We've been going over this exact issue in the office for two weeks solid. Our issue is that if we allow articles that rely on or promote third party products we're going to be article spammed by every software vendor, large or small, out there. In fact, my experience says that we'll get more articles from small independant guys about their no-name VB component that no one's ever heard of than we will for products like CodeJock or Telerik. The articles will certainly be ranked and filtered, but do we want the homepage swamped with articles that are merely ads for their share-ware component?
- We can force all such submissions to go through the editors but that will cause a backlog on articles with full, free source code.
- We can open it up and then not show these articles on the homepage, but just show 'fully-free'. If we did that we'd have to remove them from the RSS feeds and the newsletter too. And maybe Search as well. In which case - what's the point?
- We could allow members to filter them out using their settings. This only applies to those who have spent the time learning our system and would really put off new members before they got a chance to learn
I'm open for suggestions [BTW: here's[^] an exmple of an article that relies on a third party library. Personally I do not see this as a service to the community as a whole]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
We can force all such submissions to go through the editors but that will cause a backlog on articles with full, free source code.
Rather than approaching it from "here's an article, is it spam, is it legite, etc." why not filter it based on author. Certainly there are reputable authors here on CP that would not abuse the privelege to write about a 3rd party component. For example, I would not write about Interacx for obvious reasons. So, if you had a process where trusted authors could write without swamping the article submission backlog, that would avoid putting the burden on CP. If there was a process that authors could request to be in this trusted category, that would be helpful as well. A simple criteria (aimed again at reducing your burden) is that the author needs to have a proven track record: x # of existing general articles with some rating threshold. You already have (or had) a "trust" system in place with CP protectors, etc. So the difference is, don't focus on the "here's a random article" but rather "here's an article by a reputable author." In a sense, as it stands right now, you're punishing the reputable authors because of concern over the authors of illrepute. That leads to situations where you can't move forward on what ought to be a good and competitive idea. Marc
-
We've been going over this exact issue in the office for two weeks solid. Our issue is that if we allow articles that rely on or promote third party products we're going to be article spammed by every software vendor, large or small, out there. In fact, my experience says that we'll get more articles from small independant guys about their no-name VB component that no one's ever heard of than we will for products like CodeJock or Telerik. The articles will certainly be ranked and filtered, but do we want the homepage swamped with articles that are merely ads for their share-ware component?
- We can force all such submissions to go through the editors but that will cause a backlog on articles with full, free source code.
- We can open it up and then not show these articles on the homepage, but just show 'fully-free'. If we did that we'd have to remove them from the RSS feeds and the newsletter too. And maybe Search as well. In which case - what's the point?
- We could allow members to filter them out using their settings. This only applies to those who have spent the time learning our system and would really put off new members before they got a chance to learn
I'm open for suggestions [BTW: here's[^] an exmple of an article that relies on a third party library. Personally I do not see this as a service to the community as a whole]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
[BTW: here's[^] an exmple of an article that relies on a third party library. Personally I do not see this as a service to the community as a whole]
Yeah, I saw that and reported it as substandard. But see, it fails my criteria--an unknown author, no reputation, etc. Marc
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why is it a shame? Code posted here is completely useless if it requires a commercial library (that isn't provided with the Visual Studio). It would preclude about 99% of the users here from using the the article.
Really? How many people use DevExpress or Infragistics? What about all those endorsements for DevExpress' XtraReports? I have a variety of code snippets that I imagine people who are interested in that product would like to see. Or what about Telerik's ASP.NET code library? When I made that post about the DateTime control and the DataGridView, one of the responses was "who uses the .NET Framework controls anyways?" Why can't we write about useful things for those components, if this statement is true, and I suspect it is? What about useful techniques and tips for other 3rd party products, like RedGate's tools or various products that help to manipulate XML? Why should we be constrained to write just about components that Microsoft provides, like SQL Server or SharePoint? There's a variety of useful articles here on SharePoint, for example. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
How many people use DevExpress or Infragistics?
You mean how many out of 5 *MILLION*? I would wager a very, very small percentage. For instance, I don't. I use the tools that came in the VS2005/2008 box.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
