On Aug 31, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Bobby Garner wrote:
> A great many people who want to use SDCC would prefer to use it in
> an IDE.
In my experience, I'd not call it a majority by any stretch. None
of the "hardcore technical" people I know would never allow
themselves to be chained to an IDE
Nor would I, should I happen to be a "hardcore technical" guy :-)
Jean-Paul
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:02:19 +0200, Dave McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Bobby Garner wrote:
>> A great many people who want to use SDCC would prefer to use it in
>> an IDE.
> In my
A "great many" implies no more than an indefinite but significant
number, and certainly not a majority. This is the second time I've been
challenged on an argument which I did not make. This denotes a very
serious communications problem which I find to be all too common among
opensource develop
Hello,
I am on vacation until September 5th.
I will be checking my email now and again while I am away.
Thanks
Jeff Gibbons
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the
Ditto. Seems to be a poor substitute for Unix's (et al) make to me, but for
the GUI addicted I can see it's appeal. GUI's didn't exist when I started in
computing, so I don't really experience much pain doing things the 'old' way
with arcane commands, and it's often much quicker.
On Tuesday 02
On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Richard Gray wrote:
> Ditto. Seems to be a poor substitute for Unix's (et al) make to me,
> but for
> the GUI addicted I can see it's appeal. GUI's didn't exist when I
> started in
> computing, so I don't really experience much pain doing things the
> 'old' way
>
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Bobby Garner wrote:
> A "great many" implies no more than an indefinite but significant
> number, and certainly not a majority. This is the second time I've
> been challenged on an argument which I did not make. This denotes a
> very serious communications problem
I also would prefer to develop without any IDE, IDE makes me feel chained.
As for speed of development, most of the time spent editing the code anyway
so I would use a good editor, that's all.
As for documentation, this is a whole separate issue. We do need the best
documentation we can use.
But,
Well, there's a difference between having an IDE if you want to use it and
being chained to one. Many of the *nix-users I know are of the sort that
would not use a single keystroke or mouse-click, if 20 would do. I'm hoping
that's not "typical" but it is an observable behavior. Maybe that's w
>From what I recall from the pre-Windows days, most of the development
software, particularly hardware-development tools, but also software
development tools, I encountered under DOS and under *nix was equipped with
its own GUI/IDE. That was, in fact one of its key weaknesses, in many
cases,
They are separate issues, but there is a common thread running through
both. For example, remembering that "SDCC is a free software", or "feel
free to do better if you can", doesn't provide me with a lot of comfort.
Statements such as these recognize, explain and/or excuse the existence
of the
bobby wrote:
> They are separate issues, but there is a common thread running through
> both. For example, remembering that "SDCC is a free software", or "feel
> free to do better if you can", doesn't provide me with a lot of comfort.
> Statements such as these recognize, explain and/or excu
OK. I think I got it now.
1) Opensource is a developers playground!
2) If anyone finds it useful, so be it.
3) If you can't use it... well, become a developer.
4) back to square 1.
Since users are often involved in their own development projects,
sometimes for profit, opensource is guaranteed t
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Bobby Garner wrote:
> OK. I think I got it now.
>
> 1) Opensource is a developers playground!
> 2) If anyone finds it useful, so be it.
> 3) If you can't use it... well, become a developer.
> 4) back to square 1.
>
> Since users are often involved in their own developmen
see below, please.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
> bobby wrote:
> > They are separate issues, but there is a common thread running t
Richard,
>> how? it suggests that someone who understands that there's a problem
>> should help solve that problem.
>>
>This is, in a sense, a circular argument. The one recognizing the problem,
>in this case, at least, is least prepared to do anything about it.
Not quite. If he's willing to a
Just trying to be a bit more constructive: if you are familiar with the concept
of wiki (a webpage/site which can be modified by anybody), there is a wiki
dedicated for sdcc directly on sourceforge pages
(http://sdcc.wiki.sourceforge.net/ ), with an attempt for SOME documentation,
done incremen
Jan Waclawek wrote:
Richard,
how? it suggests that someone who understands that there's a problem
should help solve that problem.
This is, in a sense, a circular argument. The one recognizing the problem,
in this case, at least, is least prepared to do anything about it.
Not
see below, please.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Waclawek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
> Richard,
>
>>> how? it suggests that someone who understands that
I'm certainly familiar with WikiPedia, where it took me 5 years to get them
to accept a change clearly referenced to an industry standard, yet they
wanted to (and still do) adhere to a much repeated quotation of WikiPedia
which is clearly wrong, and in fact, clearly opposite (180-degrees out of
Hi Folks,
Somewhat tangential to the hullabaloo going on at the moment about
documentation, I'm bound to say that Zilog's documentation about the Z180 MMU
is perplexing for me at least. For comparison's sake, I looked-up the Hitachi
64180 documentation and that was no more enlightening.
I unde
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Further there's so much discussion of various ways and things-to-
> install to
> make Windows look like *nix. Is that necessary, and, if so, why?
...
> Why doesn't this stuff work with normal DOS commands?
You do realize that SDCC is UNIX
On Sep 2, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Jan Waclawek wrote:
> Most of the would-be users use SDCC and similar out of necessity -
> there's no alternative given a certain budget (namely, $0). Only a
> few chose SDCC because of other qualities of open-source software
> (e.g. possibility to add a feature),
Dave,
Be careful about giving out a free account. They are already complaining
about free
software. Who knows, your bits may be held hostage until you provide the
proper
documentation.
George
Dave McGuire wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> Further there's so m
You raise a good point. However, I know Richard from elsewhere,
and while he and I may not always see eye-to-eye, I do trust him not
to hold my bits hostage. ;)
-Dave
On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:36 AM, George M. Gallant wrote:
> Be careful about giving out a free account. They are a
Gee ... no ... I thought it was LINUX software.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: "Dave McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Richard
Hmm, I suppose so. I've never run it under Linux myself.
-Dave
On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Gee ... no ... I thought it was LINUX software.
>
> regards,
>
> Richard Erlacher
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dave McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
BTW, Dave, I have several bought and paid for versions of UNIX right down in
the basement. I don't use 'em because there's so little of use that runs
under UNIX. I once had these set up for purposes of evaluating different
flavors of UNIX for a specific purpose. For a number of reasons, we
a
On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:02 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> BTW, Dave, I have several bought and paid for versions of UNIX
> right down in
> the basement. I don't use 'em because there's so little of use
> that runs
> under UNIX.
U? I run it exclusively (assuming OS X can be considered a
29 matches
Mail list logo
