Are you looking for something like that?

var product = CSScript.CreateFunc(@"int Product(int a, int b)
{
return a * b;
}");
int result = product(3, 4);

The solution (cs-script) is based on Roslyn engine.

Yeap, I could not believe my eyes neither. But this is true. The code fragment is from their official C# samples.

Thank you all. It has been fascinating to see that the topic is so engaging for so many people. I have already sent the rejection email and I do not expect any continuation of this story. I am still confused about the motives of this company and I guess I will never really know ... For me personally their proposal was a bit offending. I see nothing wrong with asking if the author would consider migrating to some more liberal licence, or implementing a new feature tailored to their business needs, or selling his product. It is indeed OK. In fact when I decided to restrict modifications of my source code (while allowing them for Open Source and non-profit projects) I was trying to trigger some commercial propositions. But not like this... The company did not offer even a symbolic donation or any alternative form of support and yet they expect one to be happy to accept the condition "...you stop developing or responding to requests". I can easy imagine such scenario: - We request feature A. - This feature conflicts with the purpose of the product. - We request feature A. - Sorry but no. - We request feature A. - We request feature A. - You stopped responding. We are forking you product.

Ha-ha, I have asked my German colleague about meaning of 'Wix#' in German. Well... the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable. ;) But at least it was not me who created the problem. I am not responsible for the 'Wix' part, I just added '#'. But from now on I will make 'WixSharp' a preferred written form.

Thank you all for your answers. I feel better now. So I am not the only one who find the situation a bit "strange".

>I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us! No, it is about Wix#, which is at the moment at the "teenage stage" comparing to C# Script. Thank you for your response/support. It seems like my interpretation of the situation is consistent with the one people have here. :) Thanks, Oleg

Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?

My first impulse is to answer "YES it is". However you will need to check it with the product specification. What was really good about XtraReports is that it did not have any dependency on anything controversial (e.g. some fancy third-party library or questionable technology). XtraReports is a pure managed library which can be XCopy deployed and report definition files just an XML files. XtraReports report viewer, from another hand, is a WinForm control (though ASP equivalent might be available now). However the report engine can generate report sin form of PDF thus you do not need any special viewer and at the same time reports are WEB friendly. Runtime report designer, though, was a bit limited but because of well designed interface (API) it was possible to have some work around for any lack of particular functionality. ComponentOne had good reporting suit too but we went with XtraRepors because it was cheaper and offered the same level of functionality. Anyway shop around. 5 years ago you were doomed to use CrystalReports. Fortunately now the things are changed... Cheers

Also keep in mind that Crystal only appears to be free. If you need non-trivil runtime report modifications you will need to pay royalty (per installation) for using some specific Crystal API. Also if you try to localize your reports you may need to buy Crystal Language Pack (~US$800 a few years ago). And I am not even talking about quality of the product....:mad: I worked with XtraReports, had good impression. It is not perfect but a solid product, which (in contrary to Crystal) is a pure managed product/application. Though some other managed alternatives might be available.

Thank you. I guess I'll need to get used to higher resolution then.

Hi Chris, I think you guess is right. The worst offenders are unedited articles. This is what I found very quickly when using IE: The articles, which cannot be viewed in whole even if the IE is maximized. http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/DLL_as_Embedded_Resource.asp (unedited) http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/Expressions.asp (unedited) The articles, which can be viewed in whole but only if the IE is maximized: http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/dbadoc.asp (unedited) http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/NARLoader.asp http://www.codeproject.com/threads/RmThread.asp I believe that you cannot warranty consistent layout for unedited articles. So there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. But probably it would be more convenient for the readers if "MinimalWidth" is set to lower value in the CodeProject article templates, which is to be used by the cotributors for the future articles. It is applicable for edited articles too, as current layout does require to keep browser maximised all the time. Thank you in advance, Oleg

Hi, Recently CodeProject team has changed www.CodeProject.com site layout. It wouldn't be a problem but after the change I cannot see most of the articles without using horizontal scrollbar (display: 1024x768). Also plenty of articles cannot be printed (without truncating) in portrait A4. And this is in both IE and Firefox. Is it something with my settings or every one else has the same problem too? Cheers, Oleg P.S. I hope CodeProject guys read this post, in case it is a real layout problem. -- modified at 18:39 Thursday 24th August, 2006