Menu
▾
▴
sdcc-user
|
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-04 09:21:18
|
Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Gray" <ri...@re...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > CYGWIN, I believe, allows some native Linux programs to run on a Windows > machine, as WINE allows some Windows programs to run on a Linux machine. > By > native I mean a simple copy of the binary executable file transferred from > one machine to the other. There may well be other shells/emulators that > permit this kind of functionality, but these are the ones I know of. > > On Thursday 04 September 2008 05:41:25 Richard Erlacher wrote: >> Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff >> isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. >> >> If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? >> >> Do you seen what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and what's that >> other >> one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? >> >> regards, >> >> Richard Erlacher > <snip> > > -- > Richard. > PGP Key-id: 0x5AB3D350 > > Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. > -- Albert Einstein > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
|
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2008-09-04 09:28:45
|
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Richard Erlacher <ed...@id...> wrote: > Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a > DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by > Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? > You are confusing console (command line) and DOS. SDCC under Windows is a command line version. It is a Win32 software, not a DOS software. Windows has the GUI subsystem as well as command line support. Xiaofan |
|
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-04 18:24:35
|
I've never worked with an OS that doesn't have a console, and that implies that it has a console command processor ... the command line input. Windows tries to get away from that, but, of course, it can't really do that. Now, I can't comment about Vista, but XP and earlier, including 2K and NT, and, of course, Win9x, all provide a console for those "emergencies" that require it. When I referred to the DOS command interpreter, that's what I meant, in the sense that it interprets and processes input from the console, and uses the venerable DOS syntax. I understand, fully, that it can't be expected to operate under the old DOS 6.-whatever or earlier. However, running under Windows seems to imply that the Windows GUI is in place. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xiaofan Chen" <xia...@gm...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:28 AM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Richard Erlacher <ed...@id...> wrote: >> Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under >> a >> DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented >> by >> Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? >> > > You are confusing console (command line) and DOS. SDCC under Windows > is a command line version. It is a Win32 software, not a DOS software. > Windows > has the GUI subsystem as well as command line support. > > Xiaofan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
|
From: Bobby G. <bg...@fh...> - 2008-09-04 18:59:12
|
In Windows XP the Command Interpreter is cmd.exe. It accepts command line input, but that doesn't mean that it has to be typed. It can run from an IDE for example. It is a DOS program and regardless of how you run it (Window or Full Screen) it still does not accept long filenames. In XP it does however, print out long filenames. When run in a Window, you do have some rudimentary edit functions, cut, copy, paste, etc. which use the Windows Clipboard. Bobby Richard Erlacher wrote: > I've never worked with an OS that doesn't have a console, and that implies > that it has a console command processor ... the command line input. Windows > tries to get away from that, but, of course, it can't really do that. Now, > I can't comment about Vista, but XP and earlier, including 2K and NT, and, > of course, Win9x, all provide a console for those "emergencies" that require > it. When I referred to the DOS command interpreter, that's what I meant, in > the sense that it interprets and processes input from the console, and uses > the venerable DOS syntax. > > I understand, fully, that it can't be expected to operate under the old DOS > 6.-whatever or earlier. However, running under Windows seems to imply that > the Windows GUI is in place. > > regards, > > Richard Erlacher > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xiaofan Chen" <xia...@gm...> > To: <sdc...@li...> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:28 AM > Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > > > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Richard Erlacher <ed...@id...> wrote: >> >>> Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under >>> a >>> DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented >>> by >>> Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? >>> >>> >> You are confusing console (command line) and DOS. SDCC under Windows >> is a command line version. It is a Win32 software, not a DOS software. >> Windows >> has the GUI subsystem as well as command line support. >> >> Xiaofan >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's >> challenge >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great >> prizes >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the >> world >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Sdcc-user mailing list >> Sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > > |
|
From: KHMan <kei...@gm...> - 2008-09-04 19:15:09
|
Bobby Garner wrote: > In Windows XP the Command Interpreter is cmd.exe. It accepts command > line input, but that doesn't mean that it has to be typed. It can run > from an IDE for example. It is a DOS program and regardless of how you > run it (Window or Full Screen) it still does not accept long filenames. > In XP it does however, print out long filenames. When run in a Window, > you do have some rudimentary edit functions, cut, copy, paste, etc. > which use the Windows Clipboard. I think before everybody confuses everybody else further, we should get an old copy of win32.hlp (or the MSDN equivalent) and read the section on "Consoles and Character-Mode Support". As a lurker, I find this thread pretty funny. :-) Yeah, it sucks that most FLOSS projects are very resource-scarce. Obviously there are 1001 desirable or wanted things, but there is little available resources to do them. The wiki has already been suggested, I believe. We should put our limited energies to better use. > Bobby > > Richard Erlacher wrote: >> I've never worked with an OS that doesn't have a console, >> [snip snip] -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
|
From: Matthew S. <ma...@sm...> - 2008-09-04 09:36:13
|
Quoth Richard Erlacher at 2008-09-04 18:51... > Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a > DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by > Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? I don't know if this is any help, but here goes: 1) If you are comfortable working in a Un*x environment, I would suggest installing Cygwin and doing everything under that - this is assuming that for some reason you cannot just run Un*x on your machine. 2) If you are NOT a Un*x person, you are probably better running SDCC under a DOS prompt. One could argue that, as Windows has a command prompt, something that runs under it could be called a Windows application. However, I think that most would say that a Windows programme is one that interacts directly with the Windows API/GUI - which would exclude all command-line programmes. Hope this helps - if not, ignore ;-) Cheers M -- Matthew Smith Smiffytech - Technology Consulting & Web Application Development Business: http://www.smiffytech.com/ Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy |
|
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2008-09-04 09:40:54
|
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Smith <ma...@sm...> wrote: > However, I think that most would say that a Windows > programme is one that interacts directly with the Windows API/GUI - > which would exclude all command-line programmes. It is correct to say that a Windows program is one that interacts directly with the Windows API, but not necessarily it needs to have a GUI. Actually most of the compilers have command line version. For example, Keil C51 compiler exes are all command line. uVision (the IDE) is the GUI to act as the front for the command line compiler components. Xiaofan |
|
From: <pg...@la...> - 2008-09-04 11:59:49
|
xiaofan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Smith <ma...@sm...> wrote: > > However, I think that most would say that a Windows > > programme is one that interacts directly with the Windows API/GUI - > > which would exclude all command-line programmes. > > It is correct to say that a Windows program is one that interacts > directly with the Windows API, but not necessarily it needs to have > a GUI. Actually most of the compilers have command line version. > For example, Keil C51 compiler exes are all command line. uVision > (the IDE) is the GUI to act as the front for the command line compiler > components. along those lines, has anyone been successful at running the Keil compiler .exe pieces under Wine? i did the experiment at one point, and got the compiler to run, but since i hadn't configured a license key (i didn't want to disturb my existing license, and i only had one, of course) the compiler wouldn't create object files. i'm curious as to whether anyone else has run it this way and gotten a working executable. paul =--------------------- paul fox, pg...@la... |
|
From: Frieder F. <fri...@we...> - 2008-09-04 23:01:51
|
pg...@la... schrieb:
> along those lines, has anyone been successful at running the Keil
> compiler .exe pieces under Wine? i did the experiment at one point,
> and got the compiler to run, but since i hadn't configured a license
> key (i didn't want to disturb my existing license, and i only had one,
> of course) the compiler wouldn't create object files. i'm curious as
> to whether anyone else has run it this way and gotten a working executable.
Hi,
I have to prepend that the information I'm giving here is
sketchy and in parts almost certain to be either misleading
or plain wrong. Sorry for that.
If you read on, expect nothing.
There are at least three scenarios of wine usage:
a) using wine (in the sense of wine only)
b) using wine making use of DLLs of an existing windows
installation
c) using wine making use of DLLs of an existing windows
installation and having rw access to files/directories
or the root filesystem of an existing windows installation.
(please excuse if my wording does not match a windows
mindset)
If you fear disturbing an existing Keil license you're probably
using c). Which might be dangerous (no intention to spread FUD).
While using a) is in my view preferred you could safely use b)
if you mount the windows installation read-only.
I cannot comment on b) or c) because I do not have installed
a reasonably recent Windows installation at home (ie. no Vista,
no XP, no Win2k).
I had some success using scenario a) with an ancient evaluation
version (7.01 ek51v701.exe) of Keil downloaded here:
ftp://ftp.phytec.de/pub/product/Keil_IDE/C51/
What did I do?
I renamed my .wine folder
I ran winecfg clicking through all its defaults
I ran wine ek51v701.exe
there was a complaint there.
I ran cp ek51v701.exe .wine/drive_c/windows/system32/
(knowing that this is not what I'd really want to do)
I ran wine ek51v701.exe again and the installation completed
I then ran wine .wine/drive_c/Keil/C51/BIN/c51.exe c/main.c
and arrived at:
---8<------
C51 COMPILER V7.01 - SN: Eval Version
COPYRIGHT KEIL ELEKTRONIK GmbH 1987 - 2002
C51 COMPILATION COMPLETE. 0 WARNING(S), 0 ERROR(S)
--->8------
with a main.OBJ and main.LST file being generated.
I did not check either the linker lx51.exe
or object to hex converter oh51.exe (which both might
just work fine within the given scenario)
But why should I (or anyone) give support for a competing
compiler that
1) runs on a host platform I do not like (Windows)
and which does not provide the functionality I'm
accustomed to.
2) runs on a host platform which I (at home) do not use.
While having been forced to pay for Windows licenses I did
not use (or even intend to use) them. The money feels like
stolen.
3) does not run on my host system which the competing
compiler vendor does not support?
As "there should be no tool chain lock-in anywhere" I think
giving some loose ends might not hurt, but I would not like
to post follow ups. (If someone feels safe about the above
stuff, and thinks it matters there is a wiki)
Greetings,
Frieder
PS: Host was openSUSE 11.0 if that matters (it should not)
|
|
From: Richardson, A. <ar...@ev...> - 2008-09-04 12:29:50
|
Not quite correct. Cygwin is a Linux emulation environment for Windows. It allows you to port Linux source code (and thereby most UNIX source) code to Windows. The included libraries provide routines that emulate most Linux system calls (fork, exec, signal, pipe, etc, etc, etc). It does not allow you to run Linux executables under Windows. Tony Richardson -----Original Message----- From: sdc...@li... [mailto:sdc...@li...] On Behalf Of Richard Gray Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:54 PM To: sdc...@li... Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally CYGWIN, I believe, allows some native Linux programs to run on a Windows machine, as WINE allows some Windows programs to run on a Linux machine. By native I mean a simple copy of the binary executable file transferred from one machine to the other. There may well be other shells/emulators that permit this kind of functionality, but these are the ones I know of. On Thursday 04 September 2008 05:41:25 Richard Erlacher wrote: > Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff > isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. > > If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? > > Do you seen what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and what's that other > one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? > > regards, > > Richard Erlacher <snip> -- Richard. PGP Key-id: 0x5AB3D350 Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdc...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
|
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2008-09-04 09:35:27
|
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Richard Erlacher <ed...@id...> wrote: > Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff > isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. SDCC under Windows is a Win32 console (command line) version. It is a Windows program. > If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? SDCC runs under Windows fine without the need for any add-on. However, some people prefer to run it with the add-ons they like to use. > Do you seen what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and what's that other > one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? > Some people prefer to run some Unix compatible shell and commands under Windows, that is the purpose of Cygwin. MinGW is the GCC compiler under Windows without the dependency for Cygwin DLL. MSys provides some basic shell support for MinGW. Xiaofan |
|
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-04 18:30:31
|
Xiaofan, I do understand what you mean. Someone else has explained off-list, too, that LINUX has a WINE that attempts to provide a Windows user interface for LINUX users, and these add-ons apparently attempt to provide the *NIX console command interface for the Windows user. Since, ultimately, they are executed in the same hardware environment, there's no reason one couldn't/shouldn't do that. I'd be interested in how extensively that function has been made to work. I've read/heard precious little about that. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xiaofan Chen" <xia...@gm...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:35 AM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Richard Erlacher <ed...@id...> > wrote: >> Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff >> isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. > > SDCC under Windows is a Win32 console (command line) version. It is > a Windows program. > >> If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? > > SDCC runs under Windows fine without the need for any add-on. However, > some people prefer to run it with the add-ons they like to use. > >> Do you see what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and what's that >> other >> one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? >> > > Some people prefer to run some Unix compatible shell and commands > under Windows, that is the purpose of Cygwin. MinGW is the GCC > compiler under Windows without the dependency for Cygwin DLL. > MSys provides some basic shell support for MinGW. > > Xiaofan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
From: <pg...@la...> - 2008-09-05 15:05:36
|
hi frieder -- frieder wrote: > pg...@la... schrieb: > > along those lines, has anyone been successful at running the Keil > > compiler .exe pieces under Wine? i did the experiment at one point, > > and got the compiler to run, but since i hadn't configured a license > > key (i didn't want to disturb my existing license, and i only had one, > > of course) the compiler wouldn't create object files. i'm curious as > > to whether anyone else has run it this way and gotten a working executable. > > Hi, > > I have to prepend that the information I'm giving here is > sketchy and in parts almost certain to be either misleading > or plain wrong. Sorry for that. > > If you read on, expect nothing. :-) > > There are at least three scenarios of wine usage: > > a) using wine (in the sense of wine only) > > b) using wine making use of DLLs of an existing windows > installation > > c) using wine making use of DLLs of an existing windows > installation and having rw access to files/directories > or the root filesystem of an existing windows installation. > (please excuse if my wording does not match a windows > mindset) > > If you fear disturbing an existing Keil license you're probably > using c). Which might be dangerous (no intention to spread FUD). > > While using a) is in my view preferred you could safely use b) > if you mount the windows installation read-only. actually, i believe when i tried it i was doing a). it was a while ago, but since my windows libraries were all inside a vmware image that it cumbersome to get things in and out of, i'm pretty sure i'd remember if i'd had to transfer a bunch of libraries. but, as i said, the compiler didn't actually finish its job, so it may be that i'll have to move to b) or c) if this is ever to work. > > I cannot comment on b) or c) because I do not have installed > a reasonably recent Windows installation at home (ie. no Vista, > no XP, no Win2k). > > > I had some success using scenario a) with an ancient evaluation > version (7.01 ek51v701.exe) of Keil downloaded here: > ftp://ftp.phytec.de/pub/product/Keil_IDE/C51/ > > What did I do? > I renamed my .wine folder > I ran winecfg clicking through all its defaults > I ran wine ek51v701.exe > there was a complaint there. > I ran cp ek51v701.exe .wine/drive_c/windows/system32/ > (knowing that this is not what I'd really want to do) > I ran wine ek51v701.exe again and the installation completed > I then ran wine .wine/drive_c/Keil/C51/BIN/c51.exe c/main.c > and arrived at: > > ---8<------ > C51 COMPILER V7.01 - SN: Eval Version > COPYRIGHT KEIL ELEKTRONIK GmbH 1987 - 2002 > > C51 COMPILATION COMPLETE. 0 WARNING(S), 0 ERROR(S) > --->8------ > with a main.OBJ and main.LST file being generated. this is excellent news. thank you. > But why should I (or anyone) give support for a competing > compiler that i certainly don't expect support for the Keil compiler from this list, believe me! i only thought to ask because (given the list traffic lately) the list moderation standards here are clearly pretty loose :-), and more seriously, i figured someone here (i.e. "linux developers of embedded micro code") might have tried it. many thanks for sharing your prior experience. paul =--------------------- paul fox, pg...@la... |
|
From: Bobby G. <bg...@fh...> - 2008-09-02 22:54:24
|
Jan Waclawek wrote: > Richard, > >>> how? it suggests that someone who understands that there's a problem >>> should help solve that problem. >>> >>> >> This is, in a sense, a circular argument. The one recognizing the problem, >> in this case, at least, is least prepared to do anything about it. >> > > Not quite. If he's willing to ask and understand/try/check/test/whatever the offered answers, he might then very well be able to describe this particular item. > The one "recognizing the problem", may be "willing to ask and understand/try/check/test/whatever", and that is implied when he poses the question. There are many examples where the "offered answers" are helpful when the question addresses an application problem. But if the question addresses documentation or an IDE heaven forbid, the "offered answers" apparently have no perceptible value, so the one asking the questions is not inspired to "understand/try/check/test/whatever". >>>> 2) Such requests typically come from _users_, not necessarily >>>> developers. >>>> >>> who better than a user to help with documentation? after all, it's >>> users that know what questions need to be answered. >>> >>> >> While inherently true and correct, this is misleading. Those who need the >> documentation the most are new, actually would-be, users, like me, who'd use >> a product if there were sufficient "instructional material" to make it >> readily useable. >> > > Most of the would-be users use SDCC and similar out of necessity - there's no alternative given a certain budget (namely, $0). Only a few chose SDCC because of other qualities of open-source software (e.g. possibility to add a feature), but that's sort of a necessity as well. And, most of these users, who WILL use SDCC anyway, need and will figure out this and that, given the incomplete documentation. > The problem with this theory, is that the user of necessity will take the same attitude which developers have about documentation, with one significant exception. While the developer is merely doing something he loves to do, the user of necessity (for the same reason he is a user), has no time for any peripheral projects, but must remain focused on his project upon which he depends to meet next months bills. |
|
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-02 22:57:36
|
see below, please. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Waclawek" <we...@ef...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > Richard, > >>> how? it suggests that someone who understands that there's a problem >>> should help solve that problem. >>> >>This is, in a sense, a circular argument. The one recognizing the >>problem, >>in this case, at least, is least prepared to do anything about it. > > Not quite. If he's willing to ask and understand/try/check/test/whatever > the offered answers, he might then very well be able to describe this > particular item. > Often one can ask, but receive nothing of any use in response. This notion can be applied to a code body of, perhaps, less than 100 lines, but not to something in the thousands of lines, particularly if it's written in the commonly cryptic uncommented 'C' by more than one person. What's to check? Against what benchmark can one test? What can be concluded from the result? > >>> > 2) Such requests typically come from _users_, not necessarily >>> > developers. >>> >>> who better than a user to help with documentation? after all, it's >>> users that know what questions need to be answered. >>> >>While inherently true and correct, this is misleading. Those who need the >>documentation the most are new, actually would-be, users, like me, who'd >>use >>a product if there were sufficient "instructional material" to make it >>readily useable. > > Most of the would-be users use SDCC and similar out of necessity - there's > no alternative given a certain budget (namely, $0). Only a few chose SDCC > because of other qualities of open-source software (e.g. possibility to > add a feature), but that's sort of a necessity as well. And, most of these > users, who WILL use SDCC anyway, need and will figure out this and that, > given the incomplete documentation. > I'd submit that there would be a lot more effort put into expansion and enhancement if one knew from the outset why a given piece of code was written in the way it was, what it intended to do, and, of course, why. Why use one data structure over another? The "why" is, ultimately, the key to understanding. > > It's just then up to their willingness to add these snippets they found > out, to some general pool of knowledge. This - incremental and > unorganized approach to documentation - is again something you don't > really like, but this might turn out to be the only way how to get to ANY > documentation. Take it or leave it. > Well, ask yourself ... "How many take it and how many leave it?" ... and why. > >>This doesn't mean >>that he ends up with a chess game when he intended to write an >>income-tax-preparation tool, > > Oh, but why not? Now, THIS would be REAL FUN indeed! :-) > Well, maybe, but as has been said a time or two, the developer most often begins a project out of necessity, usually because something either doesn't yet exist or costs entirely too much. If the chess game (and plenty of them already exist) will meet his need, then there's no real need to open-source-publish it, though I suppose he can if he wants to go on record as having reinvented the wheel ... Perhaps his wheel will be better ... > > >>SDCC's maintenance has been pretty consistent, but I'll bet there have >>been >>plenty of episodes of cursing, and of asking, "Why on earth did he do THIS >>?" > > Yeah; exactly as it happens so often in very well funded and thoroughly > organised projects. > Not so often ... Well-thought-out solutions don't normally wind up like that, and there's uncerlying documentation to explain it, even if it does. > > The problem (recognised and studied in deep detail by Mr Murphy) is, that > it's only after those years when you find out which parts of your work > were straightforward and crystal clear, and which were complex and > obscure - and, of course, it's exactly the opposite of what you thought > BACK THEN when the documentation was written... :-) > I've found few problems to be complex and obscure, though solutions tend to be, particularly when they're insufficiently studied and thought out, and therefore not well defined, before work begins. Often the problem lies in that a coder is unwilling to discard 20k lines because there's a much simpler solution, usually introduced by someone else, that requires only 400 lines written by someone else. I've seen it happen time and again, when a coder wants to re-use (and gain credit for) code from another project, often user-interface code, and it just doesn't fit the problem. > > Jan Waclawek > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-03 04:18:24
|
On Sep 2, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Jan Waclawek wrote:
> Most of the would-be users use SDCC and similar out of necessity -
> there's no alternative given a certain budget (namely, $0). Only a
> few chose SDCC because of other qualities of open-source software
> (e.g. possibility to add a feature), but that's sort of a necessity
> as well.
I'm not sure that's necessarily a fair assertion. I have access
to commercial compilers, and I choose to use SDCC for mcs51 projects
simply because I like it better. I know quite a few people for whom
this is also the case. People who use free software aren't simply
doing so because they're cheap. (just my $0.02)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
|
|
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-02 15:02:50
|
On Aug 31, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Bobby Garner wrote:
> A great many people who want to use SDCC would prefer to use it in
> an IDE.
In my experience, I'd not call it a majority by any stretch. None
of the "hardcore technical" people I know would never allow
themselves to be chained to an IDE.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
|
|
From: Jean-Paul <tch...@fr...> - 2008-09-02 15:32:12
|
Nor would I, should I happen to be a "hardcore technical" guy :-) Jean-Paul On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:02:19 +0200, Dave McGuire <mc...@ne...> wrote: > On Aug 31, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Bobby Garner wrote: >> A great many people who want to use SDCC would prefer to use it in >> an IDE. > In my experience, I'd not call it a majority by any stretch. None > of the "hardcore technical" people I know would never allow > themselves to be chained to an IDE. > -Dave > -- NEVER jump into a LOOP! |
|
From: Richard G. <ri...@re...> - 2008-09-02 16:34:00
|
Ditto. Seems to be a poor substitute for Unix's (et al) make to me, but for the GUI addicted I can see it's appeal. GUI's didn't exist when I started in computing, so I don't really experience much pain doing things the 'old' way with arcane commands, and it's often much quicker. On Tuesday 02 September 2008 16:26:52 Jean-Paul wrote: > Nor would I, should I happen to be a "hardcore technical" guy :-) > > Jean-Paul > <snip> -- Richard. PGP Key-id: 0x5AB3D350 Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out of it alive. |
|
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-02 16:38:33
|
On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Richard Gray wrote:
> Ditto. Seems to be a poor substitute for Unix's (et al) make to me,
> but for
> the GUI addicted I can see it's appeal. GUI's didn't exist when I
> started in
> computing, so I don't really experience much pain doing things the
> 'old' way
> with arcane commands, and it's often much quicker.
I agree, it's far more efficient. I don't consider it to be "the
old way" at all, though, simply because it existed before IDEs. The
vast majority of "grownup" (i.e., non-MS-Windows) software
development does not occur in an IDE.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
|
|
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-02 17:44:55
|
>From what I recall from the pre-Windows days, most of the development software, particularly hardware-development tools, but also software development tools, I encountered under DOS and under *nix was equipped with its own GUI/IDE. That was, in fact one of its key weaknesses, in many cases, because you couldn't move tools or, in fact, sometimes even documents, from one context to another, and, in other cases, could "talk" to a peripheral in one package and not in another (more of a DOS problem than a *nix problem...with *nix, it was simply impossible to "talk" to that peripheral at all. By the time the peripheral was supported under *nix, it was obsolete.) I don't care much for the problems that Windows has introduced, but it does make it easy to use poorly documented tools. Unfortunately, that's not universally the case. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" <mc...@ne...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Richard Gray wrote: >> Ditto. Seems to be a poor substitute for Unix's (et al) make to me, >> but for >> the GUI addicted I can see it's appeal. GUI's didn't exist when I >> started in >> computing, so I don't really experience much pain doing things the >> 'old' way >> with arcane commands, and it's often much quicker. > > I agree, it's far more efficient. I don't consider it to be "the > old way" at all, though, simply because it existed before IDEs. The > vast majority of "grownup" (i.e., non-MS-Windows) software > development does not occur in an IDE. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
|
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-02 16:43:37
|
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Bobby Garner wrote:
> A "great many" implies no more than an indefinite but significant
> number, and certainly not a majority. This is the second time I've
> been challenged on an argument which I did not make. This denotes a
> very serious communications problem which I find to be all too
> common among opensource developers.
I'm actually a commercial developer, but who's counting. I
apologize for reading too much into your earlier statement.
> I'm a self made engineer (no degrees) of general aviation aircraft
> DC electrical system components with 28 years experience in the field.
You are in good company here; my experience is similar.
Anyway, I respectfully (seriously) submit that you might want to
relax a bit.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
|
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X