From: wduminy AT bigfoot DOT com (Willem D)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP Project Idea
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:09:46 GMT
Message-ID: <3709afdf.435731348@news>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990329150312 DOT 9091I-100000 AT is> <37034fe7 DOT 17946996 AT news> <370647AD DOT 962AD522 AT lycosmail DOT com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: s160-2.mck.co.za
X-Trace: 7 Apr 1999 17:09:13 +0200, s160-2.mck.co.za
Lines: 36
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 11:54:06 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer
<ajschrotenboer AT lycosmail DOT com> wrote:

>Wouldn't that be sort of ridiculous???? RHIDE uses Turbo Vision, and is
>a look-alike to Borland's Turbo C. Turbo Vision is a text mode interface
>library, not a true GUI. It would not work in Windows, or at least not
>looking the same.
IMO RHIDE is more than an editor -- the editor is the visual part.
Maybe some of the debugger code can be used again in a windows app.
As I say I have not looked at the code, so this is pure speculation.
>
>Besides, what is wrong w/ RHIDE? If you want a windows IDE for DJGPP,
>use DFE 95. If it's too buggy, use EMACS. I think there is a port of
>EMACS to Win32. Try that. As for me, I don't want to see RHIDE become a
>windows app. The current interface works quite well.
I am not complaining, I like RHIDE as it is.  
I do think if it is ported the interface(i.e. user commands etc.)
should remain exactly the same, otherwise its not RHIDE, right?
Personally, I would not start the project myself, too much work, so
little to gain.
>
>BTW, a q to throw out to everybody. Is there a X Windows IDE for GNU????
>Maybe that could be ported to DJGPP. Especially since there is a current
>interest in porting XFree86.
>
Sorry, don't know.
>
>Willem D wrote:
>
>> I really think we need a full blown IDE for windows, especially for
>> windows development.
>> What about porting the RHIDE code to windows?  Maybe a lot of this
>> code can be used as is.  I haven't actually looked at it.
>