Re: [Sdcc-user] Poor documentation & open source generally

[Art C. <aar...@bi...>]

Bobby Garner wrote:
> 
> Someone mentioned Code::Blocks earlier. I tried to use it a couple of 
> years ago, but when I joined the forum and began asking questions about 
> using it with SDCC, I was ridiculed, marginalized and laughed out of the 
> process by some of the major players in the program. They have 
> apparently deleted those older posts to the forum, so I can't prove it.

Try it again - I suspect it has improved a lot since then and hopefully
the few idiots around have grown up a bit since then.
I've had good success with Code::Blocks v8.02 compiling both avr-gcc and 
sdcc (Z80) source for a few projects including a FreeRTOS based app on 
an ATMega128.
Just stick to project specific make files, set C::B to use the custom 
makefile and it works like a charm.
With care it even works with 'foreign' simulators.

> I understand that the Opensource community is composed of volunteers, 
> but since when did volunteering for something demand anything less then 
> ones very best? Maybe this is the best. As good as it gets?

Nope - we can do better (and I _should_ know having picked up one or two 
of those guvmnt certificates telling everyone how I'm such a wonderful 
volunteer!)

  > Someone mentioned how some Opensource software such as 
Openoffice.org is
> far more better documented. From those comments, and in the context in 
> which they were made, it is easily assumed that the Opensource community 
> takes full credit for that marvelous achievement.
> 
> However, leave it to some nutcase like me to point out, in this context, 
> that Openoffice.org was wholly designed and fully developed by paid 
> professional programmers working under the direction of Sun Microsystems.

No question - OpenOffice is NOT representative of the Opensource 
community or of volunteer effort.

> Please, let us deal only with reality and the facts!
> 
> Bobby Garner