Mark Evans wrote:

> Oh yes, except for that $500-$1,000 price tag to get the MSVC IDE, plus $400 for the Intel compiler.

Well, those are market prices and you would be surprized how many copies are being sold for those prices. Afterall, people that work on these products need to eat (and more than that). Whether the products are good or not...

I happen to think that part of my current financial suffering is because people still COPY software that should have been bought. Some software has price tags... Is that abnormal?

> I own MSVC6 and its IDE.  Eclipse impresses me as being a lot more capable. Compared to MSVC6 the plugin support is awesome.  MSVC6 just lets you swap out console tools.  Eclipse lets you develop entire user interfaces for your plugins with the cross-platform SWT toolkit and Java.
>
> If you're supporting the MSVC IDE, by all means do so, that will leave everyone else free to work on better IDEs.

I think it would be good to support the MSVC IDE and more...

I think the great thing with supporting the MSVC IDE is that current MSVC user can
use the DMC++ and DMD compilers without having to think too much... <g>
I personally am not too fond of the MSVC IDE...

Jan

> Let's try and keep this newsgroup in its current position: one of the few on the web where aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude are all left at the door.

Amen to that!
Jan

Amen to that! :)

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3E1B4EB9.26167BD@smartsoft.us...
> Mark Evans wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, except for that $500-$1,000 price tag to get the MSVC IDE, plus
$400 for
> > the Intel compiler.
>
> Well, those are market prices and you would be surprized how many copies
are being
> sold for those prices. Afterall, people that work on these products need
to eat (and
> more than that). Whether the products are good or not...
>
> I happen to think that part of my current financial suffering is because
people
> still COPY software that should have been bought. Some software has price
tags... Is
> that abnormal?
>
> > I own MSVC6 and its IDE.  Eclipse impresses me as being a lot more
capable.
> > Compared to MSVC6 the plugin support is awesome.  MSVC6 just lets you
swap out
> > console tools.  Eclipse lets you develop entire user interfaces for your
plugins
> > with the cross-platform SWT toolkit and Java.
> >
> > If you're supporting the MSVC IDE, by all means do so, that will leave
everyone
> > else free to work on better IDEs.
>
> I think it would be good to support the MSVC IDE and more...
>
> I think the great thing with supporting the MSVC IDE is that current MSVC
user can
> use the DMC++ and DMD compilers without having to think too much... <g> I personally am not too fond of the MSVC IDE...
>
> Jan
>
>

"Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:avbtbb$9mt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I can perform your task: convert ASM modules into inline-ASM in run-time library.
>
> But I'm curious what is the purpose?
> To eliminate need of masm? Or what?
> I doubt about converting c0 modules, it seems to me not possible.

To eliminate dependency on masm. The trouble with masm is microsoft put out too many versions that have incompatible syntax. The end result is any random masm cannot be relied upon to produce a correct obj file. I have long since abandoned trying to be compatible with yet another iteration of masm. I use a particular masm that's over 10 years old, and never change it, so the results (bugs and all) are repeatable. That makes it hard for anyone else to rebuild the library, though.

Of course, not all of the files can be converted, and it's debatable whether it is worth bothering with the 16 bit code.

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:avfceh$26ib$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Eclipse lets you develop entire user interfaces for your plugins with the cross-platform SWT toolkit and Java.

Just one question, as I don't like Java Apps at all. Isn't this thing horrible slow and fat? Robert

Jan Knepper wrote:

>>Let's try and keep this newsgroup in its current position: one of the few on
>>the web where aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude are all left
>>at the door.
>>
> 
> Amen to that!
> Jan
> 


yes.
but just i must say i didn't feel _any_ aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude on Mark's posts.
anyway i second him: DM already has a correct IDE, there is no hurry for a new one, i agree, if the new one is open source, it's good, easing DMC's integration in M$'s IDE is not a priority as far as DM is concerned IMHO.

roland

>but just i must say i didn't feel _any_ aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude on Mark's posts


Then you are more perceptive because there was none ;-).  Everyone, please avoid reading strong emotions between the lines.  I mean "reactionary" and all that -- come on guys, where do you get that stuff.  And where did I accuse Matthew of being a Microsoft pointy-head.  Sheesh.  The things I put up with.

What I tried to say, and reiterate here, is that MSVC IDE support is a good thing!  I'm glad you're working on it because that work frees others to support superior IDEs.  The more IDE support for DMC, the better.

And you were given a specific technical reason for considering Eclipse superior to MSVC.  MSVC lets you invoke different console tools in different sequences. That's all.  Eclipse does that plus a whole lot more.  It offers a vastly more elaborate plugin API complete with user interface development based on SWT and progammability based on Java.

There are more reasons. An entire industry consortium supports Eclipse, including biggies like IBM, QNX, and high-profile names from the UML and XML worlds.  Eclipse runs on half a dozen platforms.  It offers syntax-highlighted editors with debug breakpoints that you can access from the plugin API.  Heck there is even a C# plugin for Eclipse.

I've used MSVC for years at various companies.  My impression (confirmed by several conversations at these firms) is that people use it because it's all they know, not because they like it.  The same is true of the MSVC6 compiler itself.  It's just a default choice.

Someone asked about Eclipse performance.  All I can say is: quite reasonable and improving.  The whole Eclipse project is focused on performance improvements. On my AMD 1.33 GHz system I have not noticed much difference from MSVC. Whatever price Eclipse pays in performance is gained in cross-platform support that MSVC never had, and never will.

So by all means, do an MSVC IDE port.  More power to you.  For DMC and DMD however, I think Eclipse is a better alternative.  Isn't life wonderful when we have choices.

Regards,
Mark


Eclipse supported platforms to date
---------------------------------------------------------
Stable Build: M4 (2.1 Stream) http://download.eclipse.org/downloads/drops/S-M4-200212181304/eclipse-news-M4.html http://download.eclipse.org/downloads/drops/S-M4-200212181304/index.php

Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
Mac OSX (Mac/Carbon)
Linux RH 7.1/SuSE 7.1 (x86/Motif)
Linux RH 7.1/SuSE 7.1 (x86/GTK 2)
Solaris 8 (SPARC/Motif)
QNX (x86/Photon)
AIX (PPC/Motif)
HP-UX (HP9000/Motif)
(IRIX port is also started, check Eclipse newsgroups)


Eclipse links
---------------------------------------------------------
Plugin directory (there are others)
http://eclipse-plugins.2y.net/eclipse/plugins.jsp
CDT project (C/C++ support via GNU compiler and debugger)
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt/
API usage
http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-API%20use/eclipse-api-usage-rules.html

Mark

I wasn't accusing you of being all of "aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude", just a subset thereof. ;)

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I can't get how your saying "I'm glad you're working on it because that work frees others to support superior IDEs" is anything other than rude. But I'm a big boy, and have certainly had worse on newsgroups, so am happy to drop it; it's getting silly, and we're inadvertantly conspiring to create the atmosphere I was wanting to avoid, and which the Digital Mars newsgroup is renowned for not containing. I'm sure your manner is not reflective of your attitude.

Not withstanding the unfortunate phrasing, you've ignored the fact that I said Visual Studio was but _one_ of a set of tools I was targeting, so you've not really listened. Nor have you addressed Jan's salient comments about established user bases. Why deliberately ignore a very large (is it the largest - I recall reading that somewhere. Of course if could be M$ propaganda ...) community who are likely more frustrated by the low quality of the Visual C++ compiler than the somewhat less-than-optimal IDE? I cannot believe that these people are going to respond better to being told to adopt a new environment, where they have to learn a new UI with all that that entails, than to being given a simple install and thereafter being able to select one or more quality compilers instead of their lacklustre one at the check of a box? I never have to touch the mouse in Visual Studio. How long will it take before I can say the same in another IDE? (As far as I've been able to try, it's nigh on impossible in C++ Builder, CodeWarrior and DM IDDE. Conversely, switching between Intel's compiler and Visual C++ takes less than a second, and it will be the same for DMC++.

You yourself said in another thread that

 "DMC++ has to be "ten times better" to dislodge people from using MSVC++"

Having made a tentative step, users may be encouraged to make further steps, and eventually end up with a superior IDE to go with the superior compiler(s) they now use. Seems to me a pragmatic position, reflecting human (and corporate) nature and the reality of now.

Matthew

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avhv0b$isu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >but just i must say i didn't feel _any_ aggressiveness, arrogance, pomposity and attitude on Mark's posts
>
>
> Then you are more perceptive because there was none ;-).  Everyone, please
avoid
> reading strong emotions between the lines.  I mean "reactionary" and all
that --
> come on guys, where do you get that stuff.  And where did I accuse Matthew
of
> being a Microsoft pointy-head.  Sheesh.  The things I put up with.
>
> What I tried to say, and reiterate here, is that MSVC IDE support is a
good
> thing!  I'm glad you're working on it because that work frees others to
support
> superior IDEs.  The more IDE support for DMC, the better.
>
> And you were given a specific technical reason for considering Eclipse
superior
> to MSVC.  MSVC lets you invoke different console tools in different
sequences.
> That's all.  Eclipse does that plus a whole lot more.  It offers a vastly
more
> elaborate plugin API complete with user interface development based on SWT
and
> progammability based on Java.
>
> There are more reasons. An entire industry consortium supports Eclipse, including biggies like IBM, QNX, and high-profile names from the UML and
XML
> worlds.  Eclipse runs on half a dozen platforms.  It offers
syntax-highlighted
> editors with debug breakpoints that you can access from the plugin API.
Heck
> there is even a C# plugin for Eclipse.
>
> I've used MSVC for years at various companies.  My impression (confirmed
by
> several conversations at these firms) is that people use it because it's
all
> they know, not because they like it.  The same is true of the MSVC6
compiler
> itself.  It's just a default choice.
>
> Someone asked about Eclipse performance.  All I can say is: quite
reasonable and
> improving.  The whole Eclipse project is focused on performance
improvements.
> On my AMD 1.33 GHz system I have not noticed much difference from MSVC. Whatever price Eclipse pays in performance is gained in cross-platform
support
> that MSVC never had, and never will.
>
> So by all means, do an MSVC IDE port.  More power to you.  For DMC and DMD however, I think Eclipse is a better alternative.  Isn't life wonderful
when we
> have choices.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> Eclipse supported platforms to date
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Stable Build: M4 (2.1 Stream)
>
http://download.eclipse.org/downloads/drops/S-M4-200212181304/eclipse-news-M 4.html
> http://download.eclipse.org/downloads/drops/S-M4-200212181304/index.php
>
> Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
> Mac OSX (Mac/Carbon)
> Linux RH 7.1/SuSE 7.1 (x86/Motif)
> Linux RH 7.1/SuSE 7.1 (x86/GTK 2)
> Solaris 8 (SPARC/Motif)
> QNX (x86/Photon)
> AIX (PPC/Motif)
> HP-UX (HP9000/Motif)
> (IRIX port is also started, check Eclipse newsgroups)
>
>
> Eclipse links
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Plugin directory (there are others)
> http://eclipse-plugins.2y.net/eclipse/plugins.jsp
> CDT project (C/C++ support via GNU compiler and debugger)
> http://www.eclipse.org/cdt/
> API usage
>
http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-API%20use/eclipse-api-usage-rules.ht ml
>
>

I know how popular MSVC is, and I was not being rude or even trying.  You misinterpreted and are going over the top with accusations.

As DMC and Eclipse improve, they are approaching that 10x mark.  Thank you Walter Bright! :-)

Mark

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avcf5q$k9k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Developing an IDE for Linux is wasted energy.  There are good Linux IDEs already.  It would be best to focus on the compiler itself, and let people integrate DMC with Eclipse, XEmacs, whatever.

You're right. Porting the IDE to Linux was never the plan, it is much too Windows-centric.