Kar Gay Lim wrote in message <9alc2n$24i6$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>I guess I should explain what my thoughts are... If I have a couple of million dollars, I would love to get together with you all to do this:....


Unfortunately, my friends in the venture capital business tell me that there's no money available for anything today.

Fortunately, Digital Mars has a very low burn rate <g>.

Hey guys, this branch is getting too deep and diversified.. Come back to root level <g>!

1. The C# idea is not bad, but who wants to follow standards set only by Microsoft - they will change language specs faster than any compititor can keep up with. Besides, they don't want other C# implementations - they want you to USE the language....

If anything else, think about a pure C++ interpreter... so that *existing* code could be utilised easily. Don't know how practical that is...


2. HTML Pages by hand --- I got tired of Visual editors and used a variation of Literate Programming to create the web pages. The method is perfect for 'largely text' type of web-sites such as Digital Mars website. Easier for maintenance - follows Larry Wall principle of going to great lengths of trouble at start to avoid it later<g>.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

> Hey guys, this branch is getting too deep and diversified.. Come back to root level <g>!

Nag!

> 1. The C# idea is not bad, but who wants to follow standards set only by Microsoft - they will change language specs faster than any compititor can keep up with. Besides, they don't want other C# implementations - they want you to USE the language....
>
> If anything else, think about a pure C++ interpreter... so that *existing* code could be utilised easily. Don't know how practical that is...

I think it was meant with C++ instead of C#...

> 2. HTML Pages by hand --- I got tired of Visual editors and used a variation of Literate Programming to create the web pages. The method is perfect for 'largely text' type of web-sites such as Digital Mars website. Easier for maintenance - follows Larry Wall principle of going to great lengths of trouble at start to avoid it later<g>.

Have you ever tried Visual Page?

Jan

Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3ACF6915.DC7CC2B3@smartsoft.cc...
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

> > 2. HTML Pages by hand --- I got tired of Visual editors and used a variation of Literate Programming to create the web pages. The method is perfect for 'largely text' type of web-sites such as Digital Mars website. Easier for maintenance - follows Larry Wall principle of going to great lengths of trouble at start to avoid it later<g>.
>
> Have you ever tried Visual Page?
>
> Jan

Here here.

The ex-Symantec news group on Visual Page has only this trend.  Most
people says, unless you really have tried VP, you haven't really got it to say.

I am also developing web server applications, I have yet to product a class library but at the moment, I already have an integrated CGI/ISAM server tools which only requires a C/C++ compiler and no other tools required, not even SQL server etc.  That's why I said, integrating a visual tool like VP and with serverside C/C++ support is going to be COOL.

Symantec and now Webgain is nearly there - now with Visual Cafe Java
and Dreamweaver instead of VP. They require a large download because
of JDK's.  What if you can have a light weight CGI + VP type of feature
for nearly 80% of typical website?  That is what I am trying to produce
now. I already have a company doing it today but it is not an integrated
solution.

In the mean time, I still have to run things with VC--/DMC and other cross compilers.

Kar Gay Lim
Head of Research and Development,
Macquarie Medical Systems
Sydney, Australia.
www.macquariehealth.com.au

I have found problems with both prevalent Website approaches:

1. ASP, JSP, PHP etc: Put code inside HTML
2. Perl, Python etc: Put HTML inside code

I don't know which group VP falls in. (No, I have not tried it, but the name surely suggests 'visual' approach like FP, DW etc. The general impression from the discussions is that now VP is dormant. Anywhere I can get the documentation / users manual?)

The idea of keeping the two totally separate (code, html) appeals to me much more, so that each can be varied independant of the other. No mixing. I do use the visual editors during the page design, but suck the design in a different format once done. The code is pure C++ based CGI. I guess Lim is suggesting exactly that.

Would certainly love to see the approach taken by VP. Many times, we do projects without being aware of the best possible approaches. That is where the opinions of friends 'been there, done that' count!

Kar Gay Lim <kagay@kimay.net> wrote in message news:9ao8tf$liq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
news:3ACF6915.DC7CC2B3@smartsoft.cc...
> > Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
>
> > > 2. HTML Pages by hand --- I got tired of Visual editors and used a
variation
> > > of Literate Programming to create the web pages. The method is perfect
for
> > > 'largely text' type of web-sites such as Digital Mars website. Easier
for
> > > maintenance - follows Larry Wall principle of going to great lengths
of
> > > trouble at start to avoid it later<g>.
> >
> > Have you ever tried Visual Page?
> >
> > Jan
>
> Here here.
>
> The ex-Symantec news group on Visual Page has only this trend.  Most people says, unless you really have tried VP, you haven't really got it to
say.
>
> I am also developing web server applications, I have yet to product a
class
> library but at the moment, I already have an integrated CGI/ISAM server tools which only requires a C/C++ compiler and no other tools required, not even SQL server etc.  That's why I said, integrating a visual tool
like
> VP and with serverside C/C++ support is going to be COOL.
>
> Symantec and now Webgain is nearly there - now with Visual Cafe Java
> and Dreamweaver instead of VP. They require a large download because
> of JDK's.  What if you can have a light weight CGI + VP type of feature
> for nearly 80% of typical website?  That is what I am trying to produce
> now. I already have a company doing it today but it is not an integrated
> solution.
>
> In the mean time, I still have to run things with VC--/DMC and other cross compilers.
>
> Kar Gay Lim
> Head of Research and Development,
> Macquarie Medical Systems
> Sydney, Australia.
> www.macquariehealth.com.au
>
>

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

> I have found problems with both prevalent Website approaches:
>
> 1. ASP, JSP, PHP etc: Put code inside HTML
> 2. Perl, Python etc: Put HTML inside code

Agreed.

> I don't know which group VP falls in. (No, I have not tried it, but the name surely suggests 'visual' approach like FP, DW etc. The general impression from the discussions is that now VP is dormant. Anywhere I can get the documentation / users manual?)

Visual Page does not do any of them as far as I know.
It's purely about Visual Design of HTML pages.
I think Symantec developed it out of the need to have a decent HTML designer add
Java (created with Visual Cafe) to an HTML page.

> The idea of keeping the two totally separate (code, html) appeals to me much more, so that each can be varied independant of the other.

Yup!
Exactly what I do with Visual Page. (when ever I use it).

> No mixing. I do use the visual editors during the page design, but suck the
> design in a
> different format once done.

You'll love Visual Page for this part.

> The code is pure C++ based CGI. I guess Lim is suggesting exactly that.

Same here.

> Would certainly love to see the approach taken by VP. Many times, we do projects without being aware of the best possible approaches. That is where the opinions of friends 'been there, done that' count!

"been there, done that" is the dangerous line as many times in the past I have
spoken with people that 'acted' like "been there, done that" while all they had
done was read an M$ ad...
Too many times their advice let me to nothing as when I spoke again with them
(after bad experience) they turned out really not to know what they were talking
about.... :-(

The last 10 years or so I have decided not to listen to those anymore and really have done I LOT better!

Jan

A quick search found this link about Visual Page:
http://www.irt.org/software/sw016/
Please take a look.
- Rajiv


Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3AD1AB6E.B707C0E6@smartsoft.cc...
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
>
> > I have found problems with both prevalent Website approaches:
> >
> > 1. ASP, JSP, PHP etc: Put code inside HTML
> > 2. Perl, Python etc: Put HTML inside code
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I don't know which group VP falls in. (No, I have not tried it, but the
name
> > surely suggests 'visual' approach like FP, DW etc. The general
impression
> > from the discussions is that now VP is dormant. Anywhere I can get the documentation / users manual?)
>
> Visual Page does not do any of them as far as I know.
> It's purely about Visual Design of HTML pages.
> I think Symantec developed it out of the need to have a decent HTML
designer add
> Java (created with Visual Cafe) to an HTML page.
>
> > The idea of keeping the two totally separate (code, html) appeals to me
much
> > more, so that each can be varied independant of the other.
>
> Yup!
> Exactly what I do with Visual Page. (when ever I use it).
>
> > No mixing. I do use the visual editors during the page design, but suck
the
> > design in a
> > different format once done.
>
> You'll love Visual Page for this part.
>
> > The code is pure C++ based CGI. I guess Lim is suggesting exactly that.
>
> Same here.
>
> > Would certainly love to see the approach taken by VP. Many times, we do projects without being aware of the best possible approaches. That is
where
> > the opinions of friends 'been there, done that' count!
>
> "been there, done that" is the dangerous line as many times in the past I
have
> spoken with people that 'acted' like "been there, done that" while all
they had
> done was read an M$ ad...
> Too many times their advice let me to nothing as when I spoke again with
them
> (after bad experience) they turned out really not to know what they were
talking
> about.... :-(
>
> The last 10 years or so I have decided not to listen to those anymore and
really
> have done I LOT better!
>
> Jan
>
>

I had a look and obviously this is mostly true if you compare the current
Visual Page (now about 3-4 years old I guess) with the current competitors.
Visual Page is plain and simple. It's alomost 100% WYSIWYG as any other HTML
designer.
I experience it as GREAT that it does not do any Java Script, DHTML or any of
that other stuff that makes most browsers crash anyways. It's great that it
creates COMPATIBLE HTML that can be viewed in ANY browser instead of stuff that
only works in the latest the greatest if you have all services packs
(additional viruses) and registry screwers installed.
I actually thing, seeing what your background is that you would like a tool
like Visual Page for the HTML design of your sites. If you have a Visual Cafe
around you'll be able to find it somewhere on the CD-ROM.

Also, I don't know about other here, but I personally rather have a tool with an outdated look that works than something with an Office 97 or 2000 look that crashes on me all the time...

Jan



Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

> A quick search found this link about Visual Page:
> http://www.irt.org/software/sw016/
> Please take a look.
> - Rajiv
>
> Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote in message news:3AD1AB6E.B707C0E6@smartsoft.cc...
> > Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:
> >
> > > I have found problems with both prevalent Website approaches:
> > >
> > > 1. ASP, JSP, PHP etc: Put code inside HTML
> > > 2. Perl, Python etc: Put HTML inside code
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > I don't know which group VP falls in. (No, I have not tried it, but the
> name
> > > surely suggests 'visual' approach like FP, DW etc. The general
> impression
> > > from the discussions is that now VP is dormant. Anywhere I can get the documentation / users manual?)
> >
> > Visual Page does not do any of them as far as I know.
> > It's purely about Visual Design of HTML pages.
> > I think Symantec developed it out of the need to have a decent HTML
> designer add
> > Java (created with Visual Cafe) to an HTML page.
> >
> > > The idea of keeping the two totally separate (code, html) appeals to me
> much
> > > more, so that each can be varied independant of the other.
> >
> > Yup!
> > Exactly what I do with Visual Page. (when ever I use it).
> >
> > > No mixing. I do use the visual editors during the page design, but suck
> the
> > > design in a
> > > different format once done.
> >
> > You'll love Visual Page for this part.
> >
> > > The code is pure C++ based CGI. I guess Lim is suggesting exactly that.
> >
> > Same here.
> >
> > > Would certainly love to see the approach taken by VP. Many times, we do projects without being aware of the best possible approaches. That is
> where
> > > the opinions of friends 'been there, done that' count!
> >
> > "been there, done that" is the dangerous line as many times in the past I
> have
> > spoken with people that 'acted' like "been there, done that" while all
> they had
> > done was read an M$ ad...
> > Too many times their advice let me to nothing as when I spoke again with
> them
> > (after bad experience) they turned out really not to know what they were
> talking
> > about.... :-(
> >
> > The last 10 years or so I have decided not to listen to those anymore and
> really
> > have done I LOT better!
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >

> The linker is optlink. I have no idea why this would interfere with debugging x32 applications, perhaps Doug can answer that. The old Zortech blink should still work, anyway. But optlink is a vast improvement over blink.

I talked to FlashTek not too long before they went away. According to the guy on the phone (not sure who it was, don't remember his name), he said that starting with SC++ 7.0, the linker scrambled the debug info in such a manner that the FlashView debugger was not able to decipher it correctly. If I wanted to debug X32 applications, I needed to use SC++ 6.1 with link386 from 6.0. There were a few people who were able to debug X32 apps written with 7.x, but I was never able to make it happen.

I would be willing to try blink, if it will solve the problem. Where is that available?

(granted, X32 apps are a bit dated now, but there is the infrequent occasion that I get to fiddle with them)

You can try this one. No guarantees!

M@ wrote in message <9auovo$15ol$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>> The linker is optlink. I have no idea why this would interfere with debugging x32 applications, perhaps Doug can answer that. The old Zortech blink should still work, anyway. But optlink is a vast improvement over blink.
>
>I talked to FlashTek not too long before they went away. According to the guy on the phone (not sure who it was, don't remember his name), he said that starting with SC++ 7.0, the linker scrambled the debug info in such a manner that the FlashView debugger was not able to decipher it correctly.
If
>I wanted to debug X32 applications, I needed to use SC++ 6.1 with link386 from 6.0. There were a few people who were able to debug X32 apps written with 7.x, but I was never able to make it happen.
>
>I would be willing to try blink, if it will solve the problem. Where is
that
>available?
>
>(granted, X32 apps are a bit dated now, but there is the infrequent
occasion
>that I get to fiddle with them)
>
>