On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:45:46 +0200, Christian Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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. ..how does building a policy on this, affect code stability? One problem with compiler slack is the possibility of sloppy coding, on the other hand a too strict compiler could enforce suboptimal to bad coding, too. I dunno about the policy, but, as you say, we do have a practice on this. ;-) > 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! ..valid point. My point was dump MSVC alltogether, we're supporting FG on top of the Wintendos (too, for FG users), not the Microsoft Corp. ;-) > > > ..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 ..no way, this is too much fun. ;-) > also very good to find subtle bugs ..agreed, but we also need to watch out so we don't introduce _other_ subtle bugs? Microsoft is well known for _not_ sticking to standards. Even their own. > > 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) ..like I said in another message, you'll wanna dump it when you find a better tool. It'll prove itself in the end product. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
