It's a sad day! Something make me sad deeply!
All is dll, I can't build my own stlport dll, can't build boost thread
library!
They all need the rtl dll, the library named "snd.lib"

I beg you, Great Walter! please put "snd.lib" in downloadable package! I promise I'd like to buy the CD version, but it's hard to do!

I'm chinese, far far from US.

PLEASE GIVE ME AND ALL SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF CAKE!

The CD is so inexpensive, only $25, and has the dll's in it. I've made it available at such a low cost so anyone can afford it.

"nyra" <nyra@sohu.com> wrote in message news:bfnap9$2je1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It's a sad day! Something make me sad deeply!
> All is dll, I can't build my own stlport dll, can't build boost thread
> library!
> They all need the rtl dll, the library named "snd.lib"
>
> I beg you, Great Walter! please put "snd.lib" in downloadable package! I promise I'd like to buy the CD version, but it's hard to do!
>
> I'm chinese, far far from US.
>
> PLEASE GIVE ME AND ALL SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF CAKE!
>
>

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bfnp0c$30ta$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The CD is so inexpensive, only $25, and has the dll's in it. I've made it available at such a low cost so anyone can afford it.

This is true. nyra, do you know how the cost of everything (on digital mars cd): tools, modified api's, support, etc. compares to Intel, MS, Borland, and others' prices?

I bought it and only had to do it once. Upgrades are free. I am not sorry
that I made such a small investment (in terms of money) for such a large
investment (the development tools).

CD is really inexpensive, but it may be little difficult to order it from
such countries as Russia or China.
I had to ask Doug Huffman to buy CD and then send it to me  via air-mail.
At that time only PayPal was acceptible for buying Digital Mars CD, but it
didn't permit to register users from Russia, for example.
Now VeriSign is avalable, but have never tried it and cannot guaratee that
it accepts users (and VISA cards!) from any country.

I really love Digital Mars. DMC CD is in fact invaluable. And about prices... MSVC6 for $1500 is much, much worser than Digital Mars C++ fo $25. Anything that is comparable to DMC is MSVC6 + IntelCompiler ($1500 + $500 respectivly), but it is 80 times more expensive.

Nic Tiger.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bfnp0c$30ta$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The CD is so inexpensive, only $25, and has the dll's in it. I've made it available at such a low cost so anyone can afford it.
>
> "nyra" <nyra@sohu.com> wrote in message news:bfnap9$2je1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > It's a sad day! Something make me sad deeply!
> > All is dll, I can't build my own stlport dll, can't build boost thread
> > library!
> > They all need the rtl dll, the library named "snd.lib"
> >
> > I beg you, Great Walter! please put "snd.lib" in downloadable package! I promise I'd like to buy the CD version, but it's hard to do!
> >
> > I'm chinese, far far from US.
> >
> > PLEASE GIVE ME AND ALL SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF CAKE!
> >
> >
>
>

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:bfrs2r$mql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> CD is really inexpensive, but it may be little difficult to order it from
> such countries as Russia or China.
> I had to ask Doug Huffman to buy CD and then send it to me  via air-mail.
> At that time only PayPal was acceptible for buying Digital Mars CD, but it
> didn't permit to register users from Russia, for example.
> Now VeriSign is avalable, but have never tried it and cannot guaratee that
> it accepts users (and VISA cards!) from any country.

We take checks too! Interestingly, people buy DMC from all over the world. Sometimes even the postal clerks have never heard of the country!

> I really love Digital Mars. DMC CD is in fact invaluable. And about prices... MSVC6 for $1500 is much, much worser than Digital Mars C++ fo
$25.
> Anything that is comparable to DMC is MSVC6 + IntelCompiler ($1500 + $500 respectivly), but it is 80 times more expensive.
>
> Nic Tiger.

There's no reason to pay such high prices!

Well, yes and no.

I'm a big fan of DMC++, as you know, but I'm very glad to have access to the Visual C++ IDE (although I must point out that I use VS 97 & 98 - I can't stand what they've done to efficient non-mouse-needing coders with the VB-swill that is VS.NET!), and obviously anyone working for a company where $2000 is no big deal will (and should) by VS + Intel.

I would like to see two things happen:

1. DMC++ be plugable with VS. (I have in fact plans to do this myself - part of the way there - but it's a time thing, so not likely before the end of the year.)

2. the DMC++ IDDE scrapped, and an open-source IDDE for both C++ & D (and pluggable so we can put other compilers into it) started (or built from the existing IDDE if Walter can open-source it). If DMC++ had a killer IDDE - COM and/or Python plug-ins for wizards, syntax highlighting, code inspection, etc. etc. As long as it's managed properly, I find it hard to believe that this community could not provide all that and more.

I guess the argument against is that Walter earns a (perfectly reasonable) modest income from the CD, and I would not want to be the cause of that drying up.



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bfs92n$12gi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:bfrs2r$mql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > CD is really inexpensive, but it may be little difficult to order it
from
> > such countries as Russia or China.
> > I had to ask Doug Huffman to buy CD and then send it to me  via
air-mail.
> > At that time only PayPal was acceptible for buying Digital Mars CD, but
it
> > didn't permit to register users from Russia, for example.
> > Now VeriSign is avalable, but have never tried it and cannot guaratee
that
> > it accepts users (and VISA cards!) from any country.
>
> We take checks too! Interestingly, people buy DMC from all over the world. Sometimes even the postal clerks have never heard of the country!
>
> > I really love Digital Mars. DMC CD is in fact invaluable. And about prices... MSVC6 for $1500 is much, much worser than Digital Mars C++ fo
> $25.
> > Anything that is comparable to DMC is MSVC6 + IntelCompiler ($1500 +
$500
> > respectivly), but it is 80 times more expensive.
> >
> > Nic Tiger.
>
> There's no reason to pay such high prices!
>
>

Well, I think Visual Studio is the matter of taste. As for me, I hate it. I
had to use it several times and I think it is very unconvenient.
And resource editors in Visual Studio is real suxx.

I liked IDE made by Borland for Turbo C++ 3.0. It was the most convenient
IDE I ever saw. Borland C Builder's IDE comes near, it is certainly better
than VS,
but it is poorer than old Turbo C++ IDE.

Now I use Far+Colorer(for Win32), NC+BC3(as editor under DOS) and
smake+makefiles and it suits me very well.
Also it gives me possibility to have lower requirements for libraries used
by me: I can always turn GCC's makefiles into DMC's ones manually in about
30 min
and than everything works. How do I do it if I used to VS?

As for debugger, my opinion is: it is usefult for novices, for those who
want to understand how (particular) compiler works or for fighting minor
bugs.
For anything else it is useless. If you write DirectX exclusive-mode
application, you cannot use debugger. It is not the only example.
The main debugger should remain in developer's head. This is the most
advanced method of debugging.

And usual debugger is useful when human brain cannot understand program's
behaviour. But it takes place mainly due to compiler bugs.
I think I better will use bugless DMC than buggy VC6 and will not need
integrated debugger most times.

Nic Tiger.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bfu5vh$44$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Well, yes and no.
>
> I'm a big fan of DMC++, as you know, but I'm very glad to have access to
the
> Visual C++ IDE (although I must point out that I use VS 97 & 98 - I can't stand what they've done to efficient non-mouse-needing coders with the VB-swill that is VS.NET!), and obviously anyone working for a company
where
> $2000 is no big deal will (and should) by VS + Intel.
>
> I would like to see two things happen:
>
> 1. DMC++ be plugable with VS. (I have in fact plans to do this myself -
part
> of the way there - but it's a time thing, so not likely before the end of the year.)
>
> 2. the DMC++ IDDE scrapped, and an open-source IDDE for both C++ & D (and
> pluggable so we can put other compilers into it) started (or built from
the
> existing IDDE if Walter can open-source it). If DMC++ had a killer IDDE - COM and/or Python plug-ins for wizards, syntax highlighting, code inspection, etc. etc. As long as it's managed properly, I find it hard to believe that this community could not provide all that and more.
>
> I guess the argument against is that Walter earns a (perfectly reasonable) modest income from the CD, and I would not want to be the cause of that drying up.
>
>
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bfs92n$12gi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:bfrs2r$mql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > CD is really inexpensive, but it may be little difficult to order it
> from
> > > such countries as Russia or China.
> > > I had to ask Doug Huffman to buy CD and then send it to me  via
> air-mail.
> > > At that time only PayPal was acceptible for buying Digital Mars CD,
but
> it
> > > didn't permit to register users from Russia, for example.
> > > Now VeriSign is avalable, but have never tried it and cannot guaratee
> that
> > > it accepts users (and VISA cards!) from any country.
> >
> > We take checks too! Interestingly, people buy DMC from all over the
world.
> > Sometimes even the postal clerks have never heard of the country!
> >
> > > I really love Digital Mars. DMC CD is in fact invaluable. And about prices... MSVC6 for $1500 is much, much worser than Digital Mars C++
fo
> > $25.
> > > Anything that is comparable to DMC is MSVC6 + IntelCompiler ($1500 +
> $500
> > > respectivly), but it is 80 times more expensive.
> > >
> > > Nic Tiger.
> >
> > There's no reason to pay such high prices!
> >
> >
>
>

"Nic Tiger" <tiger7@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:bfukpj$dla$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Well, I think Visual Studio is the matter of taste. As for me, I hate it.
I
> had to use it several times and I think it is very unconvenient. And resource editors in Visual Studio is real suxx.
I don't much care for it either now. My school made me use it for the programming courses (vs6ent). While on that same note, I also had to take a couple VB courses...puke!

> I liked IDE made by Borland for Turbo C++ 3.0. It was the most convenient
> IDE I ever saw. Borland C Builder's IDE comes near, it is certainly better
> than VS,
> but it is poorer than old Turbo C++ IDE.
The turbo C IDE was my first IDE. I loved it, though I do not have any access to it now. When I was a heavy borland fan, I was in love with BCB's IDE. I have some angry remarks about their faulty code-completion utility (the ctrl+space), though you have to be a pretty lazy coder to rely on it.

> Now I use Far+Colorer(for Win32), NC+BC3(as editor under DOS) and
> smake+makefiles and it suits me very well.
Where do you get Far+? Sounds interesting!

Nic Tiger wrote:
> As for debugger, my opinion is: it is usefult for novices, for those who
> want to understand how (particular) compiler works or for fighting minor
> bugs.
> For anything else it is useless.

A debugger is useless?  Tell that to the thousands of software professionals that rely on debuggers to solve complex problems and issues.

 If you write DirectX exclusive-mode
> application, you cannot use debugger. It is not the only example.
> The main debugger should remain in developer's head. This is the most
> advanced method of debugging.

The more complex software gets, the human brain cannot remember every module, every line, and every conceivable path of execution a program can take.  Maybe if you are developing a toy program, or a program that is so limited in scope, it does a specific number of things, then a debugger may not be necessary, but for today's large scale applications, the debugger is a necessity, not a luxury.


> And usual debugger is useful when human brain cannot understand program's
> behaviour. But it takes place mainly due to compiler bugs.

Debuggers are used mostly to solve programming bugs, not compiler bugs.

> I think I better will use bugless DMC than buggy VC6 and will not need
> integrated debugger most times.
> 
> Nic Tiger.
> 

DMC is a very good compiler, and yes, it can be less buggy than VC 6.0.  But a compiler suite without a debugger (note, I am not referring to DMC), regardles of how bugless the compiler may be, is still a *major* shortcoming.  This is especially the case if the compiler is going to be used in a production environment to create large scale applications.

Paul McKenzie

Paul McKenzie wrote:

> Nic Tiger wrote:
> > As for debugger, my opinion is: it is usefult for novices, for those who
> > want to understand how (particular) compiler works or for fighting minor
> > bugs.
> > For anything else it is useless.
> A debugger is useless?  Tell that to the thousands of software professionals that rely on debuggers to solve complex problems and issues.

"Software Professionals" should know that using a debugger requires things as optimization  to be turned off. It also requires extra data to be added to the executable for the debugger to work with and have a reference to the source code.

These things more often than not happen to cover up serious problems as not-intialized pointers, not-initialized data and quite a few more with the cute result that a program runs fine in the debugger, but seriously fails in release versions.

So, for some people debuggers have some use... for other people debuggers have no use...

'No-use' for instance comes with Real Time systems that have to perform on high performance dealing with hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of events per second. Believe me, for debugging those systems debuggers have basically no use... They add complexity and more often than not disallow proper testing.

> > application, you cannot use debugger. It is not the only example. The main debugger should remain in developer's head. This is the most advanced method of debugging.
> The more complex software gets, the human brain cannot remember every module, every line, and every conceivable path of execution a program can take.  Maybe if you are developing a toy program, or a program that is so limited in scope, it does a specific number of things, then a debugger may not be necessary, but for today's large scale applications, the debugger is a necessity, not a luxury.

Unit testing... Write small units and test them separately. Than put them all together in a large well designed program.

I do not know how large the systems are you are working on that seem to require a debugger. Again for some people/projects they work for other people/projects they do not. There are several large systems that are being build and have been build (successfully) without the use of any debugger...

Jan