On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 21:34:43 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> for the info and your friendly offer to help. But I'm already
> fine and settled thanks to some hints in the GDC forum and in
> particular thanks to hints and help from Iain Buclaw (whose help
> and work can't be praised enough).

I couldn't agree more. :-)

On 04/09/13 01:17, ixid wrote:
> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 20:25:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Fer gawd's sake, why not put their entire freakin' back catalog on it?
>>
>> For example, there's a "sampling" of a few of Julia Childs' shows from the
>> 60's. Why not put them all on?
>
> The deliberate scarcity of entertainment, or at least enforcement of the new and
> unavailability of the old is a part of their plan. Music is similar in that it's
> hard to get hold of lots of older recordings through legal channels. They don't
> want the consumer to have freedom.

That's not entirely fair.  Often the reason why older shows are difficult to get hold of is because back then distribution rights were not managed comprehensively as they are now, because no one ever thought there'd be a need to (e.g. before there was ever such a thing as video tapes or DVDs, let alone streaming).

The result is that whoever owns the physical recordings may not have good enough documentation to know who they have to negotiate with in order to ensure a certain kind of distribution rights, and so they can't distribute even if they want to.

So, for example, with an older TV series the original contracts would probably have covered TV repeats but not distribution.  In order to issue a DVD or distribute via streaming media or download, the TV studio would likely have to negotiate and secure new contracts with not just the writer, director and production company but also with all the performers, possibly many of the crew, and very likely also the music composer and any musicians who performed on the soundtrack.

There can also be confusion over who holds the copyright to various material, and so on.

All of that makes it _very_ difficult to release some older material, and unless the prospective income is large enough, companies are unlikely to feel it's worth doing all the legwork tracing the different rights holders.

Just as one example: Disney has a huge amount of stuff in its archives which it would love to release as DVD extras, but they can't because of issues like these.

On 02/09/2013 15:15, Manu wrote:
> For me, I absolutely will not work without a symbolic debugger,

Oh well, so much getting you to try DDT, at least for now. :p

But I do understand that is a reasonable deal-breaker. (However, ditching Eclipse IDEs just because they are Eclipse-based is not though, regardless of what may be the status quo in the C/C++ community)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 17 September 2013 00:00, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 02/09/2013 15:15, Manu wrote:
>
>> For me, I absolutely will not work without a symbolic debugger,
>>
>
> Oh well, so much getting you to try DDT, at least for now. :p
>
> But I do understand that is a reasonable deal-breaker. (However, ditching Eclipse IDEs just because they are Eclipse-based is not though, regardless of what may be the status quo in the C/C++ community)


I don't have any particular issue with Eclipse. I just prefer VisualStudio
and MonoDevelop.
Eclipse feels like it's held together with sticky tape and glue. But it
works for Android, and AppEngine.

We've been experimenting with kdevelop on linux recently. It's showing promise. Basic support and debugging works, but it doesn't have a semantic analysis engine :(

On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 14:00:14 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 15:15, Manu wrote:
>> For me, I absolutely will not work without a symbolic debugger,
>
> Oh well, so much getting you to try DDT, at least for now. :p
>
> But I do understand that is a reasonable deal-breaker. (However, ditching Eclipse IDEs just because they are Eclipse-based is not though, regardless of what may be the status quo in the C/C++ community)

I have discovered that lot of issues with Eclipse from fellow C++ developers came simply from using default eclipse.ini - it often does have rather small memory limits defined for VM and Eclipse does want plenty of memory. Increasing most parameters 2x-3x times in eclipse.ini can make it much more smooth and convenient.

On 16/09/2013 16:33, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 14:00:14 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> On 02/09/2013 15:15, Manu wrote:
>>> For me, I absolutely will not work without a symbolic debugger,
>>
>> Oh well, so much getting you to try DDT, at least for now. :p
>>
>> But I do understand that is a reasonable deal-breaker. (However,
>> ditching Eclipse IDEs just because they are Eclipse-based is not
>> though, regardless of what may be the status quo in the C/C++ community)
>
> I have discovered that lot of issues with Eclipse from fellow C++
> developers came simply from using default eclipse.ini - it often does
> have rather small memory limits defined for VM and Eclipse does want
> plenty of memory. Increasing most parameters 2x-3x times in eclipse.ini
> can make it much more smooth and convenient.

DUUH, I totally forgot to mention this to DDT users. I've added that ( http://www.vogella.com/articles/Eclipse/article.html#eclipse_memorysettings ) to the UserGuide , and will mention it on next release.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 17 September 2013 01:33, Dicebot <public@dicebot.lv> wrote:

> On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 14:00:14 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2013 15:15, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> For me, I absolutely will not work without a symbolic debugger,
>>>
>>
>> Oh well, so much getting you to try DDT, at least for now. :p
>>
>> But I do understand that is a reasonable deal-breaker. (However, ditching Eclipse IDEs just because they are Eclipse-based is not though, regardless of what may be the status quo in the C/C++ community)
>>
>
> I have discovered that lot of issues with Eclipse from fellow C++ developers came simply from using default eclipse.ini - it often does have rather small memory limits defined for VM and Eclipse does want plenty of memory. Increasing most parameters 2x-3x times in eclipse.ini can make it much more smooth and convenient.
>

What kind of quantity are we talking? My VisualStudio2010 is humming away
right now at 80mb with a large project open (less than i expected).
It's a text editor... what does it do?

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:18:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
> What kind of quantity are we talking? My VisualStudio2010 is humming away
> right now at 80mb with a large project open (less than i expected).
> It's a text editor... what does it do?

How in the world are you getting that small of a memory footprint? My CS2010 is currently using 203k with a fairly bare-bones project. Hell, it gobbles up 100k just idling with nothing open.

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 02:05:12 UTC, Meta wrote:
> How in the world are you getting that small of a memory footprint? My CS2010 is currently using 203k with a fairly bare-bones project. Hell, it gobbles up 100k just idling with nothing open.

VS2010*

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 04:04:55 Meta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:18:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > What kind of quantity are we talking? My VisualStudio2010 is
> > humming away
> > right now at 80mb with a large project open (less than i
> > expected).
> > It's a text editor... what does it do?
> 
> How in the world are you getting that small of a memory footprint? My CS2010 is currently using 203k with a fairly bare-bones project. Hell, it gobbles up 100k just idling with nothing open.

He did say 80 _MB_ not, 80 KB. Whether that's a small footprint or not for VS, I don't know, but it's way more than the 203 KB that that you're talking about.

- Jonathan M Davis