I am wondering how I can re-compile and load all .lisp files in a certain directory. I have modified a macro that is heavily used by all the files in that directory. Hence, it would be most efficient to just re-compile and re-load the entire thing.
If it helps, I am doing this on Allegro, but am curious about the same for SBCL.
What you are looking for is a system construction facility. like asdf.
Any ad hoc code you might whip up is not worth the effort. Just write a small asd file for this directory.
Related
This feels too obvious to be unanswered, but if the answer is out there, I haven't found it. For context, I'm incorporating someone else's existing code into a Bazel build, so I'm really not looking for "just don't do it that way"-type answers.
The code produces man dozen related files: Libraries, compiled binaries (from C and C++, if that matters), python and shell scripts, etc. Those files expect to find each other in specific locations (e.g. shell scripts reference binaries by relative or absolute path), and I need to package up and install the whole lot.
Is there a way to do that in Bazel? To pick out a bunch of bazel-generated files (and, in this case, a bunch of input files that we pass through unmodified) and put them in a tarball, or a standard package format (e.g. .deb) or even just place them in the local file system in known locations?
The closest ideas I've seen involve basically doing it by hand (e.g. writing a shell script to go into Bazel's output directory and copy out the files of interest) but that seems easy to get wrong. There has to be a way to use the intelligence of the build system to bundle up a bunch of targets and data files, right?
Naturally, I find what's probably the answer shortly after posting the question: https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/pkg.html. If anyone has further insight, though, I'm definitely happy to hear it!
i'm new year and I need some answer. I searched on the web to some answer but i didn't found anything usefull. What am i searching is for a shell programms that when you execute it, create a Makefile with the binary name in arguments like :
./automakefile.sh hello .
Will build you a Makefile with a binary name called hello.
I hope you guys will help me, i'm counting on you <3
There is, unfortunately, no such magic command. If there was, we wouldn't need Makefiles to start with because the magic would most likely have been incorporated in the compiler.
There are several reasons why there isn't a command like that.
Given a random binary file, you can't generally say what programming language it was written in.
You also can't tell what source file were used to compile the binary file from, or where in the file hierarchy they are located (not just where they were located when the binary file was compiled last time, maybe on another system).
You don't know the dependencies between the source code files. Makefiles are primarily useful for keeping track of these (and compiler flags etc.), so that changing one single source file in a big project does not trigger a recompilation of everything.
You don't know what compiler to use, or what flags to pass to it. This is another thing a Makefile contains.
There are build tools available for making the creation of Makefiles easier, and for making them portable between systems on different architectures (the Makefiles that is, not necessarily the programs, that's down to the programmer). One such set of tool is GNU's autotools, another is CMake, and I'm sure there are others as well, but those are the ones I use.
Now you're facing another but similar problem, and that is that you still need to learn the syntax of, and writ,e your Makefile.am and configure.ac files (for the GNU tools), or your CMakeLists.txt files (for CMake).
Can I make a ruby file (e.g script.rb) unreadable to a user?
The file is on an Ubuntu (offline) machine. The user will use a local Sinatra app that will use some ruby files. I don't want the user to see the code in some of those files.
How can I do it?
EDIT:
Can I setup the project in a way that the user will be able to start the app but won't have access to specific files in it?
Thanks
Does that correspond to what you are searching for ?
chmod yourfile.rb 711
As I said in my comment it is literally almost impossible to hide the content of your ruby source file, many people try this in many different ways but it is almost always trivial to reverse engineer. There are some "suggestions" for making your code hidden but they never really work still, here are a few;
Obfuscation - The process of making your code executable but unreadable, using a tool like ProGuard for Java (there are ones for most major languages) will try to make your code a mess, and as unreadable as possible while still maintaining execution speed. Normally this consists of renaming variables, using strange characters and generally hiding, moving or wrapping functions in complicated structures.
Package the interpreter - You can use a tool like ocra to package the script up inside an executable with the interpreter and standard library, but anyone with even a tiny bit of experience in reverse engineering will be able to easily tear out the source code given a small amount of time
Write a custom interpreter - Now we are getting somewhere with making it harder. Writing a custom interpreter will allow you to compile your script to a "bytecode" that can then be executed. This is of course a very time consuming, expensive and incompatible solution when it comes to working with other code bases.
Write most of your code in C and then call out to it via extensions - Again this mostly moves the problem but its still there. It will take more time but anyone can easily pull apart the machine code of the C library you load in and bob is your uncle they have the source code.
Many more alternatives - This isn't a comprehensive list, I am probably missing a few ideas or suggestions.
As far as it goes making code unreadable is hard a better solution might just to be consider providing a licence agreement with your code. That way, someone reads or modifies the source file you can take them to court for a legal settlement.
Extract your code and its functionality to an external API. And then provide it as a service. This way you don't have to expose your source code to your 'users'.
I have a folder which contains an executable file (Exec.exe) and a lot of files that Exec.exe needs to run. Currently, it's pretty ugly having all of those files there when I only need to run the one executable. Is there any way to bundle them all into another executable that runs Exec.exe and also contains all of the files Exec.exe needs to run? Thanks for any help!
Yes, but I would recommend you only do it if you need to.
You can achieve this by adding your files as resources in your exe project, so they are added into the exe's binary at compile time. You can then access the files directly from your exe at runtime by using LoadResource and related functions. I'd recommend reading up on the Portable Executable (PE) file format if you're considering this route.
This is the way to do it if you, and again I stress, need to have only a single binary where you can still access your files. There are obvious downsides to doing this, such as it's much more coding to access the data as it's embedded in your application binary, and you can't easily update the files (check out resource hacker tool) without re-compiling your binary to include the new data.
If the only reason you want to do this is because it's "pretty ugly" seeing the additional files in the same directory as your exe, consider moving them into another directory, for example,
from:
MyExeDir
--myExe.exe
--myFile1.txt
--myFile2.dll
--myFile3.dat
to:
MyExeDir
--myExe.exe
--dat
----myFile1.txt
----myFile2.png
----myFile3.dat
or:
MyExeDir
--bin
----myExe.exe
--dat
----myFile1.txt
----myFile2.png
----myFile3.dat
So all the "ugly" looking files are out of the way.
Why don't you create a shortcut of "Exec.exe" and keep it somewhere handy ? If whats that you want ?
Or if you want to distribute your app, you can use Winrar/Winzip (winrar is the best) to create a compressed .exe of your entire folder, making "Exec.exe" as your startup app. Use the SFX option in winrar.
I'm looking for a good VB6 source code library (to extend the language) for things like parsing a path into root, directory, filename, extension, does a file exist, etc.
I'm happy to pay for such a resource if it's a good one (ideally with some sort of reviews/feedback).
I've found one already:
SourcePlus from AxTools
Only downside is that all of their source code is in Classes and I have 12 or so different VB6 apps that all share a lot of common code (.bas modules). So if I use one of the classes in on of my Common.Bas routines I then need to add the class to 12 different programs that all use that Common.Bas module.
I'd really prefer to have the code in either one big class or a .bas module so I can add it one time to each VB6 app and be done with it.
FYI, I've also used with good success http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/ and of course StackOverflow but I'd be happy to buy something comprehensive and well done.
I'm in favour of buying libraries in general, but you really can do a lot of file related tasks with free code. Karl E Peterson's excellent VB6 website has some great objects written entirely in VB6 - I think they're as reliable as most things I've ever bought. You could just put them in a COM DLL if you dislike managing the classes.
Convert a file path to drive and directory only.
Check whether a directory exists.
Check whether a file exists.
...I could go on
Can you build their source as a COM dll and just refer to it from your own projects?