Tag Archives: development

Byline Bypass?

Earlier today daringfireball pointed me to Byline by Phantom Fish, a Google Reader client-side application for the iPhone.

Since I recently abandoned Safari’s built-in RSS reader for Google, this is just the kind of application that I have been looking for. Unlike a lot of programs I’ve found on the AppStore, Byline seems to be very well put together. The author appears to have included a thoughtful set of features. Not everything, just those elements you use every day; either a good starting point for later versions or an Apple-like approach depending on your perspective.

However, one thing worries me: Google have not released a publicly available API for Reader. Unless Phantom Fish have reached some deal with Google — and there’s nothing on their website to say that they have — then the only way that this application can work is if they reverse engineered the protocol1.

I’m confident that the interface works now, but what about tomorrow? The popular opinion is that Google are not happy with parts of the API and will publish the full version soon, but until the API is publicly available and stable there are no guarantees and it could change at any time.

Do you want to spend ?5.99 on an application that could be disabled at any time by a third party? As useful as it looks to be, I don’t want to start relying on an application with foundations as shaky as this.

  1. My first thought was that it was just a specialised RSS feed. However, the video shows support for the “Star” functionality and they say that it synchronises read status, etc. []

My del.icio.us bookmarks for January 12th through January 16th

  • Apple introduces new Apple TV software, lowers hardware pricing – Now potentially more useful with the movie rentals. But where is the price drop in the UK?!
  • Dell tells customer ‘Mac is good option’ – “Now, it’s possible that the techie was referring to a 1970s rock band, or to an item of waterproof clothing. But we can’t help concluding that he was indeed talking about Apple’s operating system.”
  • Steve Jobs gets cohesive – Some cool stuff from Apple at the MacExpo. I think the Time Capsule is going to be on my shopping list when it ships next month. The movie rentals (when they get to the UK) look interesting but they really need to build their catalogue!
  • How to recognise a good programmer – Great discussion on recognising great developers. The problem would seem to be finding them! Most recruiters just pattern match on CVs which tends to favour the “career” developer.

Joel On Software

Let’s cut to the chase: if you’ve read and enjoyed any of Joel Spolsky’s ramblings on the web you’ll like this book. Skip the rest of this review and just go buy it.

For the benefit of those that have not heard of him, who is this Joel chap and what is the book and his normal prose about? The “About the Author” section describes him as an industry veteran that writes an “anti-Dilbert manifesto” on his website. I can’t think of a better description, which is why I have shamelessly copied it rather than finding my own phrase…

He writes about software development at every level from bashing out code right through to strategy and he applies the same degree of pragmatism, common-sense and humour to every subject he covers.

The book is split into four sections and an appendix. In the first he talks about “the practise of programming,” which is the low level stuff. He starts with choosing a programming language (or, at least, why it’s probably not as important as you might think), moves on to the now almost classic “Joel Test” (Google it if you’re in any doubt how influential it has become), moves onto functional specs, schedules and the like.

Section two is all about managing developers. Personally, I think this is the part that he really excels at. Indeed, the best bits of the other sections are actually about the higher level stuff. One of the highlights is about what he calls “leaky abstractions,” basically that clever things that try to hide their underlying details tend to fall down in unpredictable ways. Ever got confused about the way a string class works in C++? This is the chapter for you!

The penultimate section is a random collection of articles, including his thoughts on the 80/20 myth, various business models and open source. I particularly like the piece on getting things done when you have no authority to do anything officially. Most books assume that you just need to learn what the right thing to do is, so it’s refreshing to find a book that deals in Real Life!

The final section is less relevant to someone like myself with a Unix background (and interest). There are three pieces on Microsoft’s .NET architecture. Nevertheless, I did read them and thought that he had some interesting things to say.

There is also an appendix, which is a “best of” collection of questions from the “Ask Joel” section on his website. This is perhaps the weakest section in the book and, although entertaining, most of the good advice in this section has already been expressed more clearly in earlier sections.

You can probably see by that I was impressed. It was an easy book to read — something that a lot of technical writers forget about — and even when I disagreed with certain things I could at least see where he was coming from.

The facts

Author: Joel Spolsky

Cost: $24.99

ISBN: 1-59059-389-8.

Buy from Amazon.co.uk.

Coder to Developer

The concept

I liked the blurb on the back:

“This title addresses all of the skills required to effectively design and develop complex applications, including planning, building and developing the application and coding defensively to prevent bugs.”

It suggests that it can bring you from the stage where you focus entirely on the code to the point where you can take in a whole project, make it all work and delight your customers. Mike Gunderloy has 25 years of commercial experience and so has a lot to say.

As he points out in the early chapters, there is a lot of ground to cover. There is everything from actually writing better code, through to planning, risk management, release management and handling your team. He covers all of these areas, providing handy hints and war stories clearly gleaned from hard-won experience.

For example, I liked the way that he sticks to the things that you need to know, even splitting them up into categoories where it makes sense. Gunderloy seems to be as amazed as I am about how m any projects do not use source control, and he lists Three Levels of Source Code Control Enlightenment, from Opening Your Eyes (just six commands and many benefits!), to SCC Journeyman (which he acknowledges may be all many people need), through to Experts Only (which he spends so little time on that it’s difficult to know what the various options he talks about are for).

Windows Coder to Windows Developer?

What you’ve seen so far is praise for the general concept of the book rather than anything very specific. There’s a reason for that. For a general software engineering book, it’s strange that there is such a strong Windows and .Net slant. There is no need for such details and it will reduce its longevity and usefulness. Steve McConnell’s “Code Complete” is ten years old and is still relevant (even though a new edition has just come out). In six months Coder To Developer could well look dated.

There is also a question-mark over the accuracy of some of the information. For example, he credits the the iterative development process to Microsoft and Rational, forgetting Bohem’s spiral model predated both by well over ten years. He seems to be much more fluent in more recent practises like Agile and XP, which is commendable but seemingly lacking the foundations makes it difficult to put these newer methodologies into perspective.

But if you can ignore these problems, there is lots of good advice. He’s pragmatic ? using the good bits of, say, XP without taking the process as gospel ? and the writing is accessible and friendly. Even disagreeing with some of the early chapters, I still persevered as it wasn’t a dense or difficult read.

The facts

Author: Mike Gunderloy

Cost: $29.99

ISBN: 0-7821-4327-X.

Buy from Amazon.co.uk.



PL/SQL is good for many things. It has a structured, Ada-like syntax and can have SQL statements seamlessly embedded in it. Although not compiled right down to machine code, it’s even fairly quick.

But one thing that most people initially have difficulty doing is displaying information on the screen. The first thing I did was to enter what I wanted into a temporary table and use SQL*Plus to select from it. This works well for reports at the like, but it doesn’t work at all if you want to display something independently of a transaction or halfway through a function.

I was frustrated that there wasn’t a better way of feeding back information to end users. I was wrong to be frustrated: there is a better way.

Hello world!

The best example I can think of doing is the world famous “Hello, World!” program, so here goes:

     DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE ('Hello, world!');
END hello_world;

In SQL*Plus you can run that procedure by typing “exec hello_world” and pressing return.

You may be surprised to see that it says “PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.” and nothing else; there’s no “hello world” text. Surely it’s lying, it hasn’t successfully executed anything, has it?!

As with most things Oracle, things are not quite as simple as they first appear. In this case you need to tell SQL*Plus that you’re going to use the DBMS_OUTPUT package. To do that, you need the following command:

set serveroutput on

You might want to put this in your “login.sql” file so that it gets executed every time you log in. You can also add the “size” parameter to the end to indicate how much output you’ll be producing. The most you’re allowed is around 1Mb so I usually type “set serveroutput on size 1000000”.

If you try executing the procedure now, you’ll find that it works correctly.

A longer example

For our second and final example, we’ll use one of the tables that Oracle installs by default. It’s called EMP and should be in the SCOTT schema (password TIGER). The important fact here is that there are a number of different columns types, NUMBER’s, VARCHAR2’s and DATE’s.

On to the example:

     CURSOR emp_cur IS
         SELECT e.empno, e.ename, e.sal, e.hiredate
         FROM   emp e
         WHERE  e.sal > 2500;
     FOR current_employee IN emp_cur LOOP
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE ('-------------------');     -- string literal
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE (current_employee.empno);    -- number(4)
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE (current_employee.ename);    -- varchar2(10)
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE (current_employee.sal);      -- number(7,2)
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE (current_employee.hiredate); -- date
         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE ('Year: ' ||
                               TO_CHAR(current_employee.hiredate, 'YYYY'));
     END LOOP;

This code should be pretty much self-explanatory. We first start a loop over a table. Inside the loop we output the content of it. The first PUT_LINE statement shows that you can output a string literal (we know this as ‘Hello world’ is one too). The second shows that you can output numbers without first converting them to a string — the function is overloaded and will accept most standard types.

Following that theme, the third, fourth and fifth lines output a string, a different number and a date, in all cases using the default format string. The last PUT_LINE statement shows that you can output expressions, but note that it all needs to be of the same type (so in this case I convert a date to a string so I can concatenate it to another string).

On my machine, the output is as follows:

SQL> set serveroutput on
SQL> exec example2
Year: 1981
 Year: 1981
 Year: 1987
KING 5000
Year: 1981
Year: 1981
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.


As we’ve come to expect from Oracle over the years, simply outputting a little text to the screen isn’t quite as easy as you might wish for.

And it’s not without it’s problems. If you want to send more than a megabyte to the screen, you’re still going to have difficulty and all the playing around with “set serveroutput” is just plain tedious.

However, the important point is that you can do it and, programatically, it’s (basically) just a single command.

If you want more information on this kind of thing, have a look in chapter 6 of Oracle Builtin Packages, a whole book dedicated to this kind of thing.

Free Software HOWTO

v1.2, 17 January 2001

With the current Linux trend towards multi-million dollar IPO’s and “Open Source” software, much of the emphasis of “free” software has been lost leaving people new to the fold confused and not completely understanding all the implications. This HOWTO will, hopefully, reduce some of that confusion.


What’s in here?

This document talks in non-technical terms about free software, what it means and why you should care about more than just the cost of your software.

Who is this HOWTO for?

People that have been hacking for years will already be fully au fait with the content of this document. Or at least you should be!

The Free Software HOWTO is aimed at people new to Linux, Open Source or free software.

New versions of this document

The official home of this HOWTO is here. You will always find the most up to date version here.


You get what you pay for. I offer no warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise. I’ll help you where I can but legally you’re on your own.

Credits and Thanks

I welcome any constructive feedback on this HOWTO and any general software licencing issues, although my opinions are just that: a subjective view. You should understand what each licence means before committing to one for your own software or documentation..


This document is copyright 2000, 2001 Stephen Darlington. You may use, disseminate and reproduce it freely, provided you:

  • Do not omit or alter this copyright notice.
  • Do not omit or alter the version number and date.
  • Do not omit or alter the document’s pointer to the current WWW version.
  • Clearly mark any condensed, altered or versions as such.

These restrictions are intended to protect potential readers from stale or mangled versions. If you think you have a good case for an exception, ask me.

(This copyright notice has been lifted from Eric Raymond’s Distribution HOWTO.)



Until now, you’ve probably never given much thought to software licences. No-one can blame you. They’re usually pages and pages of legalese telling you what you can and can’t do with the CD you just bought. If you actually sat down and read it all, you would probably never agree to it!

Licences, however, are at the heart of what free or open-source software is all about. Let’s take a look at a number of very broad categories of licence.

Commercial software

The first type is the commercial licence, like the one that Microsoft or Lotus might insist you agree with before using their software. The basic premise is that you don’t own the software, you have an agreement with the author that allows you to use it within certain guidelines. As the copyright owner, they can impose whatever restrictions they want. Common conditions include limits on the number of concurrent users, number of copies, and what you can use it for (for example, “non-commercial use” or a ban on reverse engineering).

The emphasis is what you can’t do, and all the power is in their court!

One thing to note, and this will become more relevant later on, is that none of this relates to the cost of the software (or, more properly, the licence). You can get commercial software, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer, for no cost and still be forced to abide by the publishers conditions.


The next kind of software, shareware, is sometimes called free, although as we shall see, that’s not correct.

Shareware was started in the early eighties by Jim Button when a few of his friends started passing round some software he’d written and he started getting phone calls asking for support. Eventually he added a request for $10 to the startup screen and shareware was born.

In short, shareware authors allow you to try out their software for free but request payment for continued use. Many of the same restrictions as for commercial software remain, including the limitations on reverse engineering, concurrent use of the full version, etc, stand. Additionally, the “free” downloads are often broken in some way, perhaps limited functionality or splash screens.

Interestingly, Linus Torvalds describes shareware as combining “the worst of commercial software (no source) with the worst of free software (no finishing touches).”

Public Domain software

All the licences we’ve seen until now have been designed to reduce people’s ability to do what they want with the software.

At the opposite extreme is public domain software. This is software that has no copyright and, therefore, no restrictions on its use. You can copy it onto as many machines as you like, reverse engineer it, make modifications and distribute it as you feel fit.

This is the first kind of software that we’re come across that can rightly be called “free.”

Normally, whenever you write something you automatically own the copyright, even if you don’t add an explicit copyright message. For public domain software, the author throws away these rights allowing everybody to do what they like with the software.

Unfortunately, “anything” also includes selling it. Imagine spending a huge amount of time producing your masterpiece, giving it away and then finding that someone else was able to sell it and make their fortune with all your hard work! Worse, people don’t even have to give you credit for your work; they can legally take it, replace their name with yours and distribute it.

This might be why there isn’t a huge amount on public domain software.

At this point it might be worth looking back at free commercial software. Both public domain software and a free piece of commercial software cost the same, but the freedom you’re given to use it varies. A common phrase you hear with free software is “think free speech not free beer.” The difference between public domain and commercial software show the opposite extremes.

Free software

By now it should be clear that there are many different kinds of free software and not all are equal. The version of free that this section relates to is the one promoted by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation.

But first, a little history.

The Free Software Foundation was formed in 1984 when a printer manufacturer refused to give Richard Stallman the source code (the computer instructions required to make a program). It had been leading up to this for some time — the increasing number of non-disclosure agreements, new software that banned sharing of information, etc. — and the printer manufacturer was just the straw that broke the camels back.

Stallman decided that he could not, in clear conscience, sign a non-disclosure agreement or work with a company that restricted his ability to share information. While most people would have given up at this point and gone to work, for obscene amounts of money, for a big company writing proprietary software, Stallman stuck by his principles and decided to make his own operating system, free of the constraints of commercial systems.

The process leading up to this is documented in more detail in Steven Levy’s excellent ‘Hackers.’ You’ll note that Levy calls Stallman ‘the last real hacker.’ Happily he was wrong, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this!

As we can tell from the background, “free,” in this context, relates not to the initial cost but to freedom. Stallman was unwilling to surrender the right to make modifications or improvements to any software he used — and to do this you need the source code.

This may sound just like public domain software up to this point. The difference is that there are clauses in the licence that attempt to keep the software free no matter what changes are made. The most famous free software, Linux, uses the most famous free software licence, the GNU General Public Licence. It is sometimes also called Copyleft, as it very cleverly uses the current copyright laws to do the exact opposite of its original mandate.

The way it does this is by insisting that the code and anything derived from it is also released with the GPL licence. In some senses it is ‘viral’ in nature and it is this that is central to many people’s objections.

Also, it’s worth noting that the word ‘derived’ is a little too vague. Does a library linked to a GPL’d program need to be GPL’d also? Does a program running on a free operating system need to be GPL’d?

There’s no clear, obvious answer for either of these with the current version of the GPL. The new version (3) is intended to fix some of these shortcomings, but it’s viral nature will remain.

Open Source software

Open Source software is, in many ways, exactly the same as free software, despite what Richard Stallman says!

It was started in 1997 by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens as a response to the increasing confusion over the use of the word “free” in relation to software. (Confusion that has continued, or I wouldn’t be writing this document!)

In essence, Open Source is a marketing or PR exercise to make free software more acceptable, more understood by the general public and the big corporates that, until that point, were comforted by the money they had to pay to get commercial software.

Like “free” software, the “Open Source” trade-mark does not mandate a single licence. (Freedom of choice is important, even when it comes to giving away software!) Technically any licence that meets all the requirements in the Open Source Definition can be termed Open Source. These, in summary, are no restrictions on the use of the software, access to the source code and the freedom to make modifications and distribute them.

The two most famous are the Berkeley System Distribution (BSD) Licence, which allows distribution without the source code, and the GNU General Public Licence, although there are many more.

The Sun Community Source Licence, for example, is not compliant because Sun Microsystems demand a fee for any commercial distribution and insists that derivations are still compatible in some arbitrary ways. (This is not intended to single out the SCSL as being particularly bad. However, the fact that it purports to be “open” when it isn’t is a disturbing trend.)

The implications


Free software has already had a significant effect on the computer industry. Free software is behind most of the critical parts of the Internet, it was used (unsuccessfully) as part of the defense in the Microsoft anti-trust trial and the spate of recent IPO’s has shown that there’s money too.

Unless you bought some shares, this all appears to be affecting other people. There is an impact, however.

I just use software, how does this all affect me?

It’s tempting to think that, if you’re not a ‘techie’ or a hacker, the difference between free commercial, public domain and Open Source software is minimal. But that’s not true, even as a user the difference affects you because the development of the software is affected.

I’ll outline a plausible scenario as an example.

Company X designs and releases a fantastic piece of software. It’s commercial software, but the publisher seems receptive to new ideas, indeed versions 1.1 and 2.0 are exactly what you were looking for and the upgrade costs were reasonable.

At this point any number of things can happen. Perhaps you find a bug in it, one critical to your business. But the publisher offers no warranty for the software and say they are not sure whether they will fix it. (Note that just because you paid for the software, you do not necessarily get better service or a guarantee of any kind. According to the licence, you can’t sue Company X if the software is not fit for the purpose it was sold for.)

Or maybe they go out of business. Or perhaps they start competing with your company and won’t sell you the next version. Or perhaps the features you want are not in the new version. There are a huge number of ‘if’s and ‘maybe’s, all outside your control.

Basically, if you use commercial, close-source software you are at the whim of the publisher. If they do something you don’t like, tough.

However, if you’d used Open Source software you’d have access to the source code and could fix or upgrade the program as you saw fit. And if you couldn’t do it, there are many programmers willing to support the new versions or you could hire someone to do it for you. In summary, you have much more control over future development of the product.

You’ll note that none of the advantages here are strictly related to cost. I think that’s something that people tend to focus on too much, possible due to the “free software” title. However, there are still advantages.

But first we need to get away from the initial cost of the software as that’s normally a small percentage of the total cost. Instead, let’s think in terms of support costs. Once you’ve installed the software, what costs are there? An obvious cost is that of upgrades. Less obvious is lost productivity due to software failure and support charges from the manufacturer.

In the case of free software, there are no upgrade costs (other than the time and inconvenience of doing it, which also applies to commercial software). Free software is usually regarded as more reliable then commercial software — see Fuzz Revisited for more information. And the support charges are optional: you can either deal with it in-house or hire any one of a number of support organisations.

I’m a developer. How does this affect me?

As a developer, you’ll already know the benefits of being able to access the source code for a program. You can fix it, see how it works and integrate bits of it into your new program. (Using parts of another program, however, isn’t quite that simple and is dependent on the licence of the original software.)

A common problem developers see is the loss of their livelihood. If everyone gives away their software, how can anyone make money? It’s a fair question and there’s no single, correct answer.

Perhaps the most common answer is that most software is developed in-house and is not distributed. None of this development will be affected, so if you have that kind of job you can rely on your salary for a while yet!

If you work for a consultancy, almost all the revenue comes not from selling software but from “professional services,” i.e., they charge for developing the software rather than the licence to use it. Again your job is safe.

Then there’s shrink-wrapped software. The Free Software Foundation would say that it should be free. So if you listen to them and you work for Microsoft your job is in danger unless they diversify into services.

The Open Source people would say that there’s nothing wrong with shrink-wrapped software, but point out that there are advantages in releasing the source.

As you can probably see, the risk to your jobs is small and there are many benefits. At least that’s the way I see it and I work writing software!

Where can I read more?

The most obvious place to read more is at the GNU website, after all they started it all.

But there are alternatives. Other important web-sites are as follows:

  • Open Source. This is the ‘official’ Open Source page. There’s lots of interesting stuff here, including a more detailed discussion on the effect of free software on different people Microsoft’s Halloween documents, their unofficial response to the Linux threat.
  • Eric Raymond’s web-site. Eric has written much about Open Source software, with much more depth and style than I can muster!
  • Slashdot. There aren’t more ‘HOWTO’s here, but Slashdot is a community of people interested in Open Source software. The discussions sometimes get childish, but you can learn a lot!

There are also a few books published (at least partially) on the subject:

  • OpenSources. Voices from the Open Source Revolution.. This book talks about all aspects of the Open Source community, including licencing. The main reference is Bruce Perens essay.
  • The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Again, this book is about general Open Source issues, but it includes a discussion on some of the non-obvious implications of the licences, particularly the reason why just because you can, you don’t frequently get many versions of a piece of software.
  • Hackers Steven Levy talks about the early days of the hacker community, including a good piece on Richard Stallman.