Jonathan Polley wrote: > > On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 09:05 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:09:14 -0700 (PDT), > > Jonathan Polley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> I have a few questions brought about by some recent experiences, but > >> what they boil down to is "Are we going to reestablish the minimun > >> system requirements for FlightGear." > >> > >> First, due to deficiencies in the compiler, it is becoming more and > >> more difficult to build FlightGear under MSVC 6.0. MSVC 6.0 cannot > > > > ..I take it there is a _free_ alternative? Drop MSVC then, or, > > have Microsoft fix it. Their job and code, not ours. > > No, that wasn't what I meant (and I apologize if I didn't make myself > clear enough). MSVC 7.0 (.NET) is suppose to be more standards > compliant and my question was geared more toward asking if version 7.0 > would be the preferred version of MSVC.
Speaking of STL compliancy: MSVC 6 is very good. The problem is that GCC is far too much forgiving and thus Linux developers don't know what problems they are causing us. Other stuff (e.g. the for(int i;...) problem): well that's clearly MSVC fault - but can easily worked around w/o causing problems to other compilers. So I see no need in droping MSVC 6 support. Especially as people are paying for it and would need to pay for an upgrade as well we should be very careful not to force people to update. Asking somebody to update e.g. from gcc 2.95 to gcc 3.2 only costs time, but asking somebody to update from MSVC 6 to MSVC 7 costs time and money.... And at least I'm not prepared to spend the money to update from the MSVC 6 that I bought to MSVC 7! > > ..face it, what's in it for us anyway? MSVC just diverts time > > and good work away from FlightGear and into Bill Gates pockets. cheap propaganda! Just by trying to make FGFS work with MSVC I fixed quite a few bugs in FGFS that didn't show up under Linux - but easily could have when you'd change the functions a bit or perhaps update to a newer compiler (e.g. uninitalized variables). <rant> So all my valuable time that I donated Bill Gates for free (to use your argumentation) was actually to the benefit of the kommunist GCC crowd! </rant> Supporting as many compilers as possible isn't only a goal of the FGFS project (if you don't like it, create your own project and leave) but also very good to find subtle bugs > I suppose that following that line would also cause us to drop > development for Windows? Personally, I have had nothing but problems > getting the Windows version of the gcc environment to run for me (at > all, period). Actually, I prefer working under a GUI environment so > even if I could get cygwin running I would probably stay under MSVC. > But that's just me. Why should I switch to CygWin? MSVC works for me (apart some FGFS stuff). So it must be FGFS fault if it doesn't compile/link/run. And as a developer I'm trying to fix that (prooven by the many MSVC compatability pathches I've submitted already) CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montague _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
