> > > > > the sole purpose of Amithlon users, or insane Amiga users. <snip> > > features..) even collecting some "renewal" registrations. > > I have the cross compiler configured on my FreeBSD box. I am an insane > developer who hasn't touched an Amiga or Pegasos in 4 months and have > been coding blind into an SSH terminal. > > Trick is: all my projects got designed around this.
Well, you have to do what is comfortable for you when coding. If this means you need to work a project out on a chalk-board, then thats what you do ;-) I've never been one to complain *how* somebody gets something done. If the electrons don't care, then neither should I. > Voyager did not. It kinda relies on an Amiga being there for certain > proprietary tools, includes for custom built tools, assigns.. it's a > messy mess IMO and it's not worth cleaning it up. And there is no gcc > cross compiler for x86 Amithlon that runs under AmigaOS or MorphOS. While I may be wrong, I could have sworn that this file, "x86-ami-bin.lha" were the x86 developer gcc files to crosscompile with (aminet). Heh, proprietary mess.... sounds like my computer room! So, cleaning up the needed tools is not worth the effort, at least for the moment? I can understand that, no new reg's ==> not a lot of incintive :-( > It's standard all right. Very standard. And strict enough that it's > very difficult to BREAK the standard. But also so complex and long > winded that you could spend days working out the myriad of combinations > of styles for an element and testing then. Ah, okay then. It's not like, oh lets say, Java. Instead, it's a very strict guideline, but a pain to deal with (like postscript maybe?) PostScript, now that brings back nightmares of late night coding excursions. > > > and you don't end up with something akin to the JS support on > > > the current browsers right now ;) > > > > Brrr! Hey, the JS in V is about as good as it gets on the old miggy, > > atm. > > Some would disagree. Having seen AWeb's and Voyager's, I'd say V's is > about a gzillion times nicer and more feature rich. IBrowse is supposed > to have JS1.5 support (ha.. anything above 1.3 is pretty much just a > virtual blow job for the coder, since it adds absolutely zip to the > actual browser..) and good support too. But that's to be seen. Pity > that such a great JS engine will exist, but with such a godawful layouter > and GUI. Heh, a gzillion times :-) Well, the proof is in the pudding, and V's JS works in far more places that AWeb's or IB's. I don't have access to IB's new version (beta, alpha, or otherwise), so I cannot compare with future offerings. > > > > could always release V2.95/6 as the suggested browser for low-end > > > > amigas.. > > > > > > But it sucks :) > > > > Yup, and so does an 8meg AGA/ECS amiga. At least for web-browsing. > > That doesn't stop people trying. And whining. Well, either the minimum specs have to be upped or a blanket "settings configuration" needs to be made for those people. Although, I'm still partial to just upping the specs :-) "Are you running V on an ECS 8Meg system? Too bad, it's not supported, goodbye." 8-) -- -- Regards, Dave 'Targhan' Crawford
