Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/08/14/09:02:29
> From: Joshua Cannon Butcher <lchandar AT mindspring DOT com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 09:55:39 +1000
> I have had some strange problems myself with RHIDE. It looks like
> Borlands IDE, but it still has a long way to go before it is as
> functional as its IDE, NOT including the Debugger. I like the fact that
Not surprisingly for a Beta product
>
> 1) When you put, for example a directory path in for the INCLUDE iles,
> and then you go to modify it, the existing INCLUDE DIRECTORY PATH DOES
> NOT SHOW UP IN THE TEXT BOX!
>
> 2) When you need to input a file name or directory name in a box, you
> should allow the programmer (user) to browse for it.
>
> 3) If there is no project file open, it WILL NOT (or I cannot get
> it to)
> create the .EXE file, only the .O file, this is severly lacking.
>
> 4) It is not as intuitive as the Borland IDE. For example, it would
> be
> nice to save the desktop on exit (Or make it an option). Save which
> files were open last etc.
I'm sure the author would like to see these features as much as you would,
but this is a BETA - the objective is to get the core code tested, and user
responses.
No offence, but your tone is that of an angry customer - perhaps a if you were
a little more positive and suportive, the author would fell more inclined to
give up his valuable time, for free, to continue developing the package.
> 5) It would be nice if you could put LIB files in the list of files to
> be compiled (and linked) in with the project area whether than in a pull
> down menu under Options. This is very clunky, and does not allow you to
> browse for a library file name. You should also be allowed to out an
> object file name in the list of files that are in the project.
>
> 6) Why call them projects and then make their extension .GRP? Thats a
> Windows Group File.
>
> 7) And for everyone in General, why do you have to stray away from
> industry standards? Calling object files .O files instead of .OBJ,
> calling C++ files .CC instead of .CPP, and .a instead of .LIB for
> library. HELLO! Its not copyright infringement to use the same
> extensions, and it would make the transition for existing C and C++
> users to use. This is quite frankly scaring me, and almost makes me
> want to pay the $500 for Borland C++ 5.0 so I can have the "standard" of
> the computer programming industry.
The standard is only that of a few DOS / Windows compilers. Much of the
'Computing Industry' over the years has been based on unix and similar
OS's where .o .cc and .a ARE the standard - MS and Borland are the odd ones
out. You should be careful of making such sweeping statements, especially
when they are not strictly true. They automatically provoke needless flames
and 'our OS is better than yours' threads on a mailing list / newsgroup
to which they aren't really appropriate.
I am very grateful to all those who put so much time in producing packacges
such as DJGPP, CWSDPMI, RHIDE etc, and answering questions here. They make
it possible for those of us who cannot afford Borland or MS compilers to
use professionnal standard development tools - and it really is a duty of
all of us to be supportive of this effort, and to recognise the limitations
of products - especially beta releases
I'v been getting angry the last week or so. Eli Zaretski has been needlessly
put down by one poster, other posters complain about the quality of packages
and demand to know when the next release is.
All I wish to say is ask a question, you'll get an answer. Raise a topic for
discussion, you will be joined. Report a bug, someone will help you work
around it, or provide a fix. But, Please Please Please don't reduce the s/n
ratio of this useful resource by slagging off people and packages from a
position of ignorance.
---------------------------------------
| Ian M. Stevenson (ims AT dcs DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk) |
---------------------------------------
- Raw text -