From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2000-09-19 03:19:10
|
--- Bruce Dodson <bru...@bi...> wrote: > I'm wondering, what is the status of mingw? I haven't seen any new stable > release in almost a year; the last release of any kind was a pre-release > snapshot from last January. There were some nice enhancements in that > snapshot, but I don't want to use a development snapshot for production > work. What ever happened to the release for which this was a pre-release? > Have there been any non-official, but stable, releases since then? > Be patient we're working on the next release. No time estimate yet. We're first looking over Mumit's previous work so that we have a base to begin working from. Paul S. do you have any comments? Cheers, ===== --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> --- Earnie Boyd: <mailto:ear...@ya...> __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__ Cygwin Newbies: <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> __Minimalist GNU for Windows__ Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ |
From: Paul M. <gu...@mo...> - 2000-09-19 20:57:34
|
From: Earnie Boyd > Be patient we're working on the next release. No time estimate > yet. We're first looking over Mumit's previous work so that we > have a base to begin working from. Paul S. do you have any > comments? Has Mumit withdrawn from the Mingw project, or are his other commitments leaving him no time to contribute? I had noticed his absence from the mailing list recently, but I couldn't recall having seen any comment as to why... Paul. |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2000-09-20 02:37:09
|
--- Paul Moore <gu...@mo...> wrote: > From: Earnie Boyd > > Be patient we're working on the next release. No time estimate > > yet. We're first looking over Mumit's previous work so that we > > have a base to begin working from. Paul S. do you have any > > comments? > > Has Mumit withdrawn from the Mingw project, or are his other commitments > leaving him no time to contribute? I had noticed his absence from the > mailing list recently, but I couldn't recall having seen any comment as to > why... > He left due to other commitments. He is still listening to this list as well as the Cygwin list. I'm assuming his other commitments currently leave him no time for extra adventures. I do know that others have heard from him, so, he hasn't vanished completely. Cheers, ===== --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> --- Earnie Boyd: <mailto:ear...@ya...> __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__ Cygwin Newbies: <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> __Minimalist GNU for Windows__ Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ |
From: Don P. <do...@ma...> - 2000-09-22 07:55:56
|
I would like to vote no to the concept of bundling an IDE with mingw or selecting an "official" one. I very much like a strong and powerful set of functions in a command line interface. The "Minimalist" part of mingw is important. I strongly agree with Greg's point four below. -----Original Message----- From: min...@li... [mailto:min...@li...]On Behalf Of Greg Chicares Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 5:25 PM To: min...@li... Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] new release?? Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable mingw32 build > of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. My idea > is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime available > (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't happen tomorrow, my > binutils build might also fit there. But even first of all that, we > should decide of packaging and installation conventions. I personally > interested in having it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) > downloads (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer > all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" IDE for > mingw and provide that off the site, too. I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. A good IDE is important to many people; makefiles can be difficult for people who have never used them before. Right now, the FAQ gives pointers to a number of IDEs, and the message to a newcomer seems to be: download a bunch of these, try them out, and use what you like. It would be ideal if we had a really great IDE to point people to. But these are the problems I see: 1. I haven't yet seen a great IDE, although I have tried several. In particular, I have not spent enough time with Source Navigator to have formed an opinion of it. But the ones I've tried are not yet mature enough for universal use in my personal opinion. 2. An official IDE will determine the first impressions new users form of the entire mingw toolset. The IDEs I've tried are not as robust and easy to use as the commercial packages of five years ago in my personal opinion. But I feel the mingw command line tools are as good as any, and it is better to compete on mingw's (gnu's) strong points. 3. Today, several IDEs compete, but none dominates. It would be better to let a victor emerge by natural selection. Declaring a winner now could inhibit competition. In contrast, gdb is clearly the debugger of choice and should be official. 4. It's important to remain part of the gnu world. If mingw users are encouraged to learn, say, to check or uncheck Compiler | Options | Nested Comments but not to learn that it means '-Wcomment', then they will have a difficult time communicating with other gcc users. _______________________________________________ MinGW-users mailing list Min...@li... You may change your MinGW Account Options at: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mingw-users |
From: Bruce D. <bru...@bi...> - 2000-09-23 12:57:09
|
I thought "minimalist" referred to the resource needs of the resulting executables. GCC can by no means be considered minimal, with or without a GUI. I haven't used any IDE with mingw. As I understand it, there are several and they all need work. Recommending an IDE would focus mingw-based developers on using (and helping improve) that particular IDE. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Pellegrino" <do...@ma...> To: <min...@li...> Sent: September 22, 2000 4:57 AM Subject: RE: [Mingw-users] new release?? > I would like to vote no to the concept of bundling an IDE with mingw or > selecting an "official" one. I very much like a strong and powerful set of > functions in a command line interface. The "Minimalist" part of mingw is > important. I strongly agree with Greg's point four below. > |
From: Joerg B. <jo...@sq...> - 2000-09-22 08:21:07
|
Hi ! Danny Smith wrote: > > --- Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> wrote: > > [JB: ... I hope not to mis-quote here ... ] > > For the ease of updating I would like to keep it modular. We may be > > able to > > modify Cygwin's new setup module for the purposes of giving the > > all-in-one > > distro. As for the "official" IDE, well, we might need to just make > > suggestions as to what we believe to be the best ones and allow > > individual > > choice. An IDE is a personal choice of like and dislike and there > > are so many > > to choose from. If we make an official choice then it will have to > > be VIDE. > > > > Please, please keep it modular, or at least provide a modular option. > Some of us in rural areas have marginal Internet service [...] IMHO, the newcomer will prefer a "complete package" which does provide a "basic system" (which he may later expand) whereas the experienced user would prefer to upgrade just some modules. The "middle way" might be to have a really minimum basic system (no IDE - see below). When I started with MinGW (not too long ago), I enjoyed the package from http://www.weihenstephan.de/~syring/win32/UnxUtils.html (a "zip" package of 2.192 kB) - contains the basic stuff I need. > > Secondly, remember the Min part of MinGW. IMHO, IDE's are add-ons. > Some of us (sigh) have old computers and memory poor graphics cards and > IDE's with fancy GUI's can be frustrating. IMO, there are at least two different classes of MinGW users: Those who use it for development, and those who just port existing stuff: a) Of the developers, many may like an IDE, but probably different ones. b) The porters (like me) probably use "make" and a command line. So I propose _not_ to include an IDE in the basic setup, rather refer to the ones which individual developers recommend (with description ?). Regards, Joerg Bruehe -- Joerg Bruehe, SQL Datenbanksysteme GmbH, Berlin, Germany (speaking only for himself) mailto: jo...@sq... |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2000-09-22 12:13:15
|
--- Joerg Bruehe <jo...@sq...> wrote: > Hi ! > > Danny Smith wrote: > > > > Please, please keep it modular, or at least provide a modular option. > > Some of us in rural areas have marginal Internet service [...] > Ok, everyone agrees to keep it modular. > IMHO, the newcomer will prefer a "complete package" which does provide > a "basic system" (which he may later expand) whereas the experienced > user would prefer to upgrade just some modules. But, as long as we provide the means of downloading or at least documenting what makes the "basic system" (i.e.: gcc, binutils, w32api, make) then the "newcomer" should be happy. > The "middle way" might be to have a really minimum basic system > (no IDE - see below). > The "all-in-one" distro will be modular, so *if* an ide is provided for download it would be optional to retrieve it. This is a *big* if, we haven't decided to do such a thing. All that was said about the IDE was to make an official statement as to which IDE's we deem to be the best. That said let's drop the IDE frenzy. > When I started with MinGW (not too long ago), I enjoyed the package from > http://www.weihenstephan.de/~syring/win32/UnxUtils.html > (a "zip" package of 2.192 kB) - contains the basic stuff I need. > We should offer something similar with the "all-in-one" distro mechanism as an optional module. > > > > Secondly, remember the Min part of MinGW. IMHO, IDE's are add-ons. > > Some of us (sigh) have old computers and memory poor graphics cards and > > IDE's with fancy GUI's can be frustrating. > As I said if it is offered it will be a module that will be an option to be downloaded. > IMO, there are at least two different classes of MinGW users: > Those who use it for development, and those who just port existing > stuff: > a) Of the developers, many may like an IDE, but probably different ones. If there are large packages being developed then a lot more than an IDE is needed. > b) The porters (like me) probably use "make" and a command line. > My favorite IDE: Vim with syntax highlighting on. (Please, no emacs vs vi flames). Cheers, ===== --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> --- Earnie Boyd: <mailto:ear...@ya...> __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__ Cygwin Newbies: <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> __Minimalist GNU for Windows__ Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ |
From: Paul G. <pga...@te...> - 2000-09-22 22:10:53
|
Hi folks, On 22 Sep 2000, at 9:23, the Illustrious Bob Powers wrote: > > Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > > > > As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable > > > mingw32 build > > > of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. > > > My idea is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime > > > available (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't > > > happen tomorrow, my binutils build might also fit there. But > > > even first of all that, we should decide of packaging and > > > installation conventions. I personally interested in having > > > it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) downloads > > > (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer > > > all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" > > > IDE for mingw and provide that off the site, too. > > I think offering Vide as an "official" or "recommended" IDE > Add-On is a fine choice. While recognizing that the question of > an IDE or No IDE or Which IDE is a matter of personal preference, > putting forward a recommendation can be helpful for those who opt > for an IDE and are short on time and inclination to 'try' all the > available brands. The only problem with a "recommended" IDE is that it tends to limit developers by, in effect, placing blinders on the developer when it comes to selecting the "appropriate" IDE for their needs. A couple of examples: Vide: This is an excellent IDE, and includes, as part of the distribution, a GUI API that is very straight-forward and well- documented. It might be a "recommended" IDE for those who only wish to develop C/C++ (Mingw/Cygwin) or Java applications. The editor command set definition options included are flexible enough that a user/developer may pretty much choose their own command set, on of which is VI. VIDE is designed to support small projects, and is extensible enough that it may, in a pinch, support large projects as well. Source-Navigator: This too is an excellent IDE and includes a number of very nice additions, including the internal ability to write code in all of the supported mingw formats such as Fortran, C and C++ (Ansi Standards). SN (4.5.2) also includes syntax checking for Cobol, Java, TCL, ASM and Python Scripts. Source-Navigator is also extensible enough that it could, with some work, even support non-ansi standard C/C++ language sets. The editor is swappable, ie. you may configure Source- Navigator, either via the existing (and now Open) source "Source Navigator SDK", or you may set it to default to an external editor such as VI, Emacs or even Notepad through the Project Preferences options. The default editor is quite good as well. Source-Navigator is targetted more towards the very large projects (in excess of 50,000 lines of source code), though it is fully capable of supporting small projects with equal ease. ------ Notice that in both cases I stated that the are both excellent IDEs. To me this is the case. I use VIDE for quick editing and small projects, and use Source-Navigator when working with applications such as compilers and Mesa3D. If I were working on PS2 conversions (and I am to a degree), then I would use (and recommend) Source-Navigator. If I were working on basic C/C++ apps, I would use (and recommend) VIDE. So, there you have it...A "recommended IDE", imho, is not something I would encourage on a generic level. When it comes to specifics, however, then a "recommended IDE" is the best way to go. Given that mingw is a generic and "native" Win32 compiler, it is next to impossible to state what is/is not a "recommended IDE". Thus, the way the mingw faq is set up, with a selection of IDEs to choose from, strikes me as the preferred method of presenting IDEs. To do otherwise tends to negate the flexibility and extensibility of the mingw toolset (can we say "toolset" yet? Given the amount of apps that are being ported for mingw, and the way these apps are being ported, I think we can. I will leave this digression open for another thread, one which focusses on Mingw as a viable toolset in the year 2000 CE...) Peace, Paul G. > > regards, > Bob Powers > > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options at: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mingw-users > Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. |
From: Paul G. <pga...@te...> - 2000-09-23 22:45:52
|
Hi folks, I was afraid this sort of question might once again come up... For those who want to trace the history of Mingw and its' reason for existing, please, _please_, take a look at the Mingw Faq (http://www.mingw.org) On 23 Sep 2000, at 9:52, the Illustrious Bruce Dodson wrote: > I thought "minimalist" referred to the resource needs of the > resulting executables. GCC can by no means be considered > minimal, with or without a GUI. I haven't used any IDE with > mingw. >As I understand it, there are several and they all need > work. When dealing with GPL or publicly available sourcecode, this is always the case. Your choice is to pro-actively deal with it (modify the IDE to your specifications) or continue to wait (passively) until someone has the time to update or port the IDE you want to use, if any. Command line builds are fine too...IDEs, regardless of licensing simply make it easier to do. Which IDE you use, if any, is entirely up to you. > Recommending an IDE would focus mingw-based developers on > using (and helping improve) that particular IDE. Not true. It may encourage someone to modify an existing IDE, but it will not focus anyone on doing anything in particular. In the world of publicly available source code or GPL, the developers are free to do whatever they choose to do and are not, by nature of the the beast called GPL or other available public (free) source-code (see Mingw licensing at http://www.mingw.org for more information on Mingw license), required to do anything. Some other things that need to be cleared up: > I thought "minimalist" referred to the resource needs of the > resulting executables. GCC can by no means be considered > minimal, with or without a GUI. I haven't used any IDE with > mingw. Actually, you're about half right. "Win32 Resources" are managed by the OS, not the compiler or the toolset (though you can write a new Mingw system resource scheduler if you wish). Some toolsets simply require more system resources than others. Some Operating Systems are, without doubt, more "shoddy" than others. Whatever "shoddiness" exists in terms of "system resources" or the functionality of the OS, are directly attributable, for the most part, to the manufacturer of the OS, whoever that might be. What does "Minimalist" really mean? If you're looking for a generic definition, check out the Mingw faq. What follows is my interpretation of what "Minimalist" really means. I am well aware that this is only one developers view of of it, and I trust that others monitoring this list will add their interpretation as they see fit. "Minimalist" refers to the amount of overhead required for handling compiles/linkage as used in the context of a toolset/API such as Cygwin. Mingw is "minimalist" in the sense that it does not require or depend on the Cygwin .dll to exist on the lib path. Mingw is also minimalist in the sense that the entire distribution (unzipped) for Mingw (msvcrt) is appx 39M (includes a minimal amount of headers/libs, etc.). The complete Cygwin distribution (including a few hundred kbytes of mingw specific headers) on the other hand is 79M with the largest part of files therein (binaries, lib(s), include(s), etc.) going to support the Unix interface and overhead processing. When using Cygwin, the reason you set -mno-cygwin is to take the Cygwin .dll out of the process, thereby reducing the system overhead and any reliance (or dependence) on Unix system calls or headers for successful compilation/linkage. This is the recommended method for building mingw apps using the Cygwin distribution(s). Mingw capability was added "after" and based, initially, on the Cygwin toolset (about the time when Cygwin was transitioning from b17 to b18 API release distributions). The initial vision, now a reality, was to eliminate dependencies on the Cygwin .dll because more and more people who were developing Win32 API applications did not want to deal with the overhead which, even today, exists under Cygwin for any Unix dependent system calls. When someone says, "I use Mingw", they are, in effect saying, "I use a "native windows" compiler which is based on GCC-2.9.5". When someone says, "I use Cygwin", they are, in effect saying, "I use a compiler with a Unix-like interface which is based on GCC-2.9.5. The compiler I use is also capable of generating 'native windows code' (binary executables) if you set the -mno- cygwin switch (Mingw)". Peace, Paul G. > > Bruce > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Pellegrino" <do...@ma...> > To: <min...@li...> > Sent: September 22, 2000 4:57 AM > Subject: RE: [Mingw-users] new release?? > > > > I would like to vote no to the concept of bundling an IDE with > > mingw or selecting an "official" one. I very much like a > > strong and powerful set > of > > functions in a command line interface. The "Minimalist" part > > of mingw is important. I strongly agree with Greg's point four > > below. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > You may change your MinGW Account Options at: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mingw-users > Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. |
From: Paul S. <pa...@is...> - 2000-09-21 12:11:28
|
Hello Earnie, Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> wrote: EB> --- Bruce Dodson <bru...@bi...> wrote: >> I'm wondering, what is the status of mingw? I haven't seen any new stable >> release in almost a year; the last release of any kind was a pre-release >> snapshot from last January. There were some nice enhancements in that >> snapshot, but I don't want to use a development snapshot for production >> work. What ever happened to the release for which this was a pre-release? >> Have there been any non-official, but stable, releases since then? >> EB> Be patient we're working on the next release. No time estimate yet. We're EB> first looking over Mumit's previous work so that we have a base to begin EB> working from. Paul S. do you have any comments? Yes, we currently working on setting up infrastructure for project with distributed maintanance. As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable mingw32 build of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. My idea is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime available (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't happen tomorrow, my binutils build might also fit there. But even first of all that, we should decide of packaging and installation conventions. I personally interested in having it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) downloads (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" IDE for mingw and provide that off the site, too. EB> Cheers, EB> ===== EB> --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> --- EB> Earnie Boyd: <mailto:ear...@ya...> -- Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135 |
From: Greg C. <chi...@mi...> - 2000-09-21 21:25:06
|
Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable mingw32 build > of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. My idea > is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime available > (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't happen tomorrow, my > binutils build might also fit there. But even first of all that, we > should decide of packaging and installation conventions. I personally > interested in having it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) > downloads (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer > all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" IDE for > mingw and provide that off the site, too. I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. A good IDE is important to many people; makefiles can be difficult for people who have never used them before. Right now, the FAQ gives pointers to a number of IDEs, and the message to a newcomer seems to be: download a bunch of these, try them out, and use what you like. It would be ideal if we had a really great IDE to point people to. But these are the problems I see: 1. I haven't yet seen a great IDE, although I have tried several. In particular, I have not spent enough time with Source Navigator to have formed an opinion of it. But the ones I've tried are not yet mature enough for universal use in my personal opinion. 2. An official IDE will determine the first impressions new users form of the entire mingw toolset. The IDEs I've tried are not as robust and easy to use as the commercial packages of five years ago in my personal opinion. But I feel the mingw command line tools are as good as any, and it is better to compete on mingw's (gnu's) strong points. 3. Today, several IDEs compete, but none dominates. It would be better to let a victor emerge by natural selection. Declaring a winner now could inhibit competition. In contrast, gdb is clearly the debugger of choice and should be official. 4. It's important to remain part of the gnu world. If mingw users are encouraged to learn, say, to check or uncheck Compiler | Options | Nested Comments but not to learn that it means '-Wcomment', then they will have a difficult time communicating with other gcc users. |
From: Bob P. <r.t...@wo...> - 2000-09-22 13:23:48
|
> Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > > As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable mingw32 build > > of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. My idea > > is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime available > > (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't happen tomorrow, my > > binutils build might also fit there. But even first of all that, we > > should decide of packaging and installation conventions. I personally > > interested in having it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) > > downloads (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer > > all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" IDE for > > mingw and provide that off the site, too. I think offering Vide as an "official" or "recommended" IDE Add-On is a fine choice. While recognizing that the question of an IDE or No IDE or Which IDE is a matter of personal preference, putting forward a recommendation can be helpful for those who opt for an IDE and are short on time and inclination to 'try' all the available brands. regards, Bob Powers |
From: Paul S. <pa...@is...> - 2000-09-22 16:50:50
|
Hello Greg, Greg Chicares <chi...@mi...> wrote: GC> Paul Sokolovsky wrote: >> >> As for releases, I think it's shame that most stable mingw32 build >> of entire history spends long time in "beta snapshot" status. My idea >> is simply re-release it with latest mingw runtime available >> (2000-03-xx vs 2000-02-xx). Since even that won't happen tomorrow, my >> binutils build might also fit there. But even first of all that, we >> should decide of packaging and installation conventions. I personally >> interested in having it in modularized (gcc/runtime/binutils separate) >> downloads (and uploads too ;-) ), still, most people will prefer >> all-in-one distro. I even think we should select "official" IDE for >> mingw and provide that off the site, too. GC> I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. Sorry, I'm not native English speaker and sometimes my lingusitical intuition fails. I used postposition 'off' to mean "unlimited access from", probably (mis-)analogy with "jump off". I agree that more natural meaning for 'provide off' would be "stop provision". Btw, sorry for rambling, I'm fond of linguistics, hope to get degree in that besides CS. -- Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135 |
From: Paul S. <pa...@is...> - 2000-09-22 16:50:52
|
Hello Greg, Greg Chicares <chi...@mi...> wrote: [] GC> It would be ideal if we had a really great IDE to point GC> people to. But these are the problems I see: GC> 1. I haven't yet seen a great IDE, although I have tried several. GC> In particular, I have not spent enough time with Source Navigator GC> to have formed an opinion of it. But the ones I've tried are not GC> yet mature enough for universal use in my personal opinion. If you want my opinion, badness of IDE stems exactly from their goodness. If there were one so good that you could do anything with just couple of clinks, you'd get so used to it, that had problems doing something without it (on other box or on other OS). I spent couple of (my starting) years with TurboDebugger and feel really hand-tied when facing any other debugger (including fullscreen/GUI ones which simple has 'Step' on other key than F7). Of course, that's only my IMHO. GC> 2. An official IDE will determine the first impressions new users GC> form of the entire mingw toolset. The IDEs I've tried are not as GC> robust and easy to use as the commercial packages of five years GC> ago in my personal opinion. But I feel the mingw command line GC> tools are as good as any, and it is better to compete on mingw's GC> (gnu's) strong points. That's exactly reason why I raised question. If we have attitudes for providing Free Software alternative to MSVC (I haven't much), then we are to have 'official' IDE. GC> 3. Today, several IDEs compete, but none dominates. It would be GC> better to let a victor emerge by natural selection. Declaring a GC> winner now could inhibit competition. YMMV, but that won't be a winner, that will be a leader, which other may want to reach and outstand ;-) GC> In contrast, gdb is clearly GC> the debugger of choice and should be official. You know my HO ;-) GC> 4. It's important to remain part of the gnu world. If mingw users GC> are encouraged to learn, say, to check or uncheck GC> Compiler | Options | Nested Comments GC> but not to learn that it means '-Wcomment', then they will have a GC> difficult time communicating with other gcc users. My hope that people will prefer to learn -Wcomment ;-I -- Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135 |