Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
SVN-HEAD binaries download
Revy:
--- Quote from: mandrav on December 06, 2005, 10:43:06 am ---
--- Quote from: Revy on December 06, 2005, 10:30:01 am ---I guess I will just have to upgrade to W2k/XP and use MS Visual C++ again.
I'm a bit sad atm, because Code::Blocks is meant to be a portable IDE and can't even run on different Win32 platforms.
And the worst is, I'm absolutly sure the usage of W98 is higher than the usage of Linux.
Bye
A sad Revy
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: C::B sources ---
--- Code: --- // TODO (mandrav#1#): Check windows version and substitute cmd.exe with command.com if needed.
cmd->command = _T("cmd /c ") + cmd->command;
--- End code ---
--- End quote ---
Revvy, you 're free to go whichever way you want but judging a program while it is still being developed is plain wrong.
You want to use the SVN-HEAD version. That's just fine. But if things don't work for you as expected (yet), you shouldn't complain about it. We 're working hard on this project and trying to make everybody happy. But things need to be coded to work. Code doesn't just write itself. So if I haven't had the time yet to fix this, it doesn't mean I never will.
If you want this to work now, provide a patch.
I don't work for you, nor any of the other developers. We do this on our free time and you have to respect it. If you don't like C::B, you 're free not to use it. But you don't have the right to demand from anyone here to work on your schedule.
You see Revvy, open source doesn't mean "free workers at your disposal". You got things all wrong...
--- End quote ---
Sorry, but where did I wrote that anyone of the develpers work for me?
--- Quote ---If you don't like C::B, you 're free not to use it.
--- End quote ---
I do like C::B, but I can't use it(at least the cvs builds).
For a person like me who is not so into C::B developement, it looks like C::B is only meant for W2k and above - first the SHFolder problem now this problem.
And there I think is a big problem - on W2k+ everyone can use the fancy MS IDE, which would mean as a consequence that C::B will be mainly used on Linux and of course from some W2k+ <> Linux Crossplatform devs.
As I already wrote in another posting - I think W9x support is a big advantage over VC.
Greetings
Revy
PS
I do like C::B :D
mandrav:
--- Quote from: Revy on December 06, 2005, 01:35:43 pm ---Sorry, but where did I wrote that anyone of the develpers work for me?
--- End quote ---
You do not have to write it verbatim. You said:
--- Quote from: Revvy ---I guess I will just have to upgrade to W2k/XP and use MS Visual C++ again.
I'm a bit sad atm, because Code::Blocks is meant to be a portable IDE and can't even run on different Win32 platforms.
And the worst is, I'm absolutly sure the usage of W98 is higher than the usage of Linux.
Bye
A sad Revy
--- End quote ---
which I read as:
"Why don't you make it work on Win98 so I can work with it? I will go to MSVC then."
--- Quote from: Revy on December 06, 2005, 01:35:43 pm ---
--- Quote ---If you don't like C::B, you 're free not to use it.
--- End quote ---
I do like C::B, but I can't use it(at least the cvs builds).
For a person like me who is not so into C::B developement, it looks like C::B is only meant for W2k and above - first the SHFolder problem now this problem.
And there I think is a big problem - on W2k+ everyone can use the fancy MS IDE, which would mean as a consequence that C::B will be mainly used on Linux and of course from some W2k+ <> Linux Crossplatform devs.
--- End quote ---
Well, either you didn't read my post or chose to "miss" the important parts:
--- Quote from: mandrav ---You want to use the SVN-HEAD version. That's just fine. But if things don't work for you as expected (yet), you shouldn't complain about it. We 're working hard on this project and trying to make everybody happy. But things need to be coded to work. Code doesn't just write itself. So if I haven't had the time yet to fix this, it doesn't mean I never will.
--- End quote ---
If you want to test the HEAD version, you should always be prepared for incompatibilities and/or broken builds from time to time. As I said above, code doesn't write itself. The code that makes you unhappy, is not written yet. So you have three options:
[*] wait for the next HEAD binary that will be made available by Therion/Ceniza (and they do it for your convenience) and it might have been fixed,
[*] use a stable release, like RC2, or
[*] go to MSVC (as you said)...
[/list]
I should also inform you that before a new official version is released, I personally test it under XP/SP2 and Windows 98SE. Those are the two platforms I test the setup files...
Did RC2 work for you, or not?
Finally, I have nothing against you. I 'm just trying to make you see things more clear. Instead of starting such a discussion since your last post, I could just tell you "Hey, have you noticed you 're talking about an unofficial build?" and I would stay in the safe side. But I chose to explain...
David Perfors:
--- Quote from: mandrav on December 06, 2005, 11:54:30 am ---Do you understand now why I said it needs some time to be correctly fixed/implemented?
--- End quote ---
hmm. yes I understand, the problem is that I can't find the documentation for GetConsoleShell()..
hmm. never mind, it is in the compiler pugin :lol:
rickg22:
--- Quote from: Revvy ---:( blahblahblahblahblah
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: mandrav --- :x blahblahblahblahblah!!
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Revvy --- :o blahblahblah!?
--- End quote ---
:shock: Guys, please keep it clean, the thread's getting too noisy. Anyway...
Revvy, look, I don't think any of us developers has Win98 to test and stuff, we appreciate your effort to make it work on that platform. The reason we can't release a workable version *right now* is that there are still many bugs to tackle. It's just about being patient and having to bear with an open source product *still* in beta. But since the feature is already being implemented, there's nothing to worry about, right? And Yiannis, please try to be a little softer the next time (just a suggestion).
AAAAAAAAAAAnyway... :) where were we?
Revy:
--- Quote from: rickg22 on December 06, 2005, 04:14:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: Revvy ---:( blahblahblahblahblah
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: mandrav --- :x blahblahblahblahblah!!
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Revvy --- :o blahblahblah!?
--- End quote ---
:shock: Guys, please keep it clean, the thread's getting too noisy. Anyway...
Revvy, look, I don't think any of us developers has Win98 to test and stuff, we appreciate your effort to make it work on that platform. The reason we can't release a workable version *right now* is that there are still many bugs to tackle. It's just about being patient and having to bear with an open source product *still* in beta. But since the feature is already being implemented, there's nothing to worry about, right? And Yiannis, please try to be a little softer the next time (just a suggestion).
AAAAAAAAAAAnyway... :) where were we?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: mandrav --- I personally test it under XP/SP2 and Windows 98SE
--- End quote ---
This is really nice to hear, thank you very much.
--- Quote from: mandrav ---"Why don't you make it work on Win98 so I can work with it? I will go to MSVC then."
--- End quote ---
This would still not mean that you work for me, but I may be a bit to unclear, I mean't that this would be the worst case scenario and it sucks. :)
Anyway, you guys have some good points - patience and unofficial, I will note that and be patient. :D
Bye
Revy
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version