Norman Dunbar wrote: > and I can almost hear Marcel groaning right now, I'm wondering what > the possibility of getting a Linux version of QPC is? > > Do I hear the work 'slim' or even 'no chance at all' out there?
Actually I prefer "not a frigging chance" ;-) Not from me, anyway. > I use QT4 for C++ development on Linux, occasionally, and if the > 'engine' of QPC is simply (Sorry Marcel, I know it isn't simple) > something that could be converted to a library, or a module that is > called, I suspect I could possible manage to build a sort of working > version of QPC for Linux - a little naive there perhaps, but I know > almost nothing of how QPC actually works. Well, step 1 would be to get the whole assembler stuff compiling under linux, which given that linux uses a completely different syntax for everything assembler (AT&T style versus Intel style) would be quite a feat in itself. Not to say practically impossible. It might be more sensible to continue using a Windows assembler and hoping that the Linux linker can cope with the resulting object format. Not sure how well that would work out. Portability wasn't really high up in the list (or even ON the list at all) of criteria for QPC's code and it shows. Due to historical reasons many parts are still mostly assembler, though over the years some parts migrated a bit to the C side of things. Most are a mix of both. All in all many things would probably have to be rewritten from scratch. If I rewrote QPC today it would be much different, but many of the design decisions were done when I was 15 or so, for much less powerful machines. > Now, whether the above is feasible, possible or even desired, I have no > idea. If you want to give it a try, that could probably be arranged. It would certainly be fun to have a Linux version, at least if I have nothing to do with it whatsoever. But quite frankly I think life is too short to even try. > I have tried to run QPC under wine on Linux but with little success. > When I type in a command at the #0 prompt, I get an instant repeat > of the first character or the command, and random ones after that. > So 'dir ram1_' would turn out to be > 'ddddddddddddddddddddddddddirrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrram1_' or similar. > Not very much use to me! Yes, wine is still a bit overwhelmed with QPC. You might have a bit more luck with Cedega. But I guess that best performance is achieved by running Windows in a virtual machine like VMWare. Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
