User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
OSS Development Studio
Michael:
--- Quote from: Takeshi Miya on November 21, 2005, 06:42:53 pm ---aggro: Not to discourage you, but I find OSS Development Studio path is very similar to Code::Blocks, it indeed looks like Code::Blocks in the first versions.
This IMHO is duplicating effort, something that sadly happens very often in the Open Source world.
--- End quote ---
I agree. I find also OSS Development Studio similar to C::B. Join the efforts will lead to a better product which will be more stable, performant and usable.
Aggro: from OSS Development Studio FAQ is cited:
For whom is this program for?
We try to make this as easy as possible for beginners to use by providing some commonly used libraries with our program. But we are also planning to use this software by ourselves, so we will target professional programmers also by providing some advanced tools under simple interfaces for them. See our roadmap for more info about our plans.
I am not very favorable to bundle libraries within an IDE. It would be rather difficult to chose which libraries should I bundle and which not. And there are always users unhappy with the choices done. Moreover, professional programmers do not like too much bundled libraries, but they prefer to chose which ones they would like to use. You can always propose two versions of the same product, but this would be redundant work.
Personally, I prefer the approach used by Dev-Cpp where you can easily download and install the libraries you prefer/need. This approach associated with an active forum is IMHO the best solution.
IMHO it would be a good solution to join the effort, instead of developing another rather similar product. Anyway, if you prefer to continue develop OSS Development Studio, then I wish you all the best.
Best wishes,
Michael
aggro:
--- Quote from: Michael on November 21, 2005, 07:23:50 pm ---I am not very favorable to bundle libraries within an IDE.
--- End quote ---
OK, "bundle" is propably a wrong word, since in the next version (0.3.0) we are planning to separate libraries from the main program and allow users to download and install only those they want. Similar way you are doing with your project and dev-cpp is doing with their project. But we won't be using devpacks, we will compile and share the libraries on our own. We consider devpack files too old and we like to provide more up-to-date versions instead.
This is something that could be done with C::B also, but do you have you any plans on doing this?
I also tried how easy it would be to install wxWidgets library and compile the helloworld example with it using C::B. It took me few minutes to find the menu option where I download devpacks. It was quite easy to find, download and install the wxWidgets devpack. But when I created new application using the wxWidgets template, it warned me that I should change the wxWidget library location. I had no idea what folder I should put there, since I'm not actually sure how the devpack extracted itself and I failed to compile the helloworld example. We are planning to distribute templates with the libraries and ensure that templates work with installed version of the library.
We also have different GUI. You seem to follow the path of the dev-cpp and you have multiple output tabs. We are not planning to have more than 3 at most (compiler output, find in files, debug ). We also have no plans on adding workspace at all. Just one single project at a time. We also have different way to create projects (which we think is faster and better). And many other small things, which we think make the usage faster and simpler. You are propably not adding these "features" as many of them are more like lack of features. But simple projects just don't need them. For example questions like "file has been created, do you want to add it to your current project" will be irrelevant in our single project program, so we don't need to ask it.
thomas:
Regarding bundling libraries, you are of course aware of the possible license issues? This is not necessarily a trifle.
aggro:
--- Quote from: thomas on November 21, 2005, 10:21:17 pm ---Regarding bundling libraries, you are of course aware of the possible license issues?
--- End quote ---
We try to be. And we are going to use only open source libraries, licensed under well known open source licenses, which allow anyone to distribute the library under the license terms.
takeshimiya:
--- Quote from: aggro ---We consider devpack files too old and we like to provide more up-to-date versions instead.
This is something that could be done with C::B also, but do you have you any plans on doing this?
--- End quote ---
What I have in mind is having a separate repository of up-to-date DevPacks for C::B, tested with the templates provided in C::B.
I lately was also thinking on implementing something like a source-repository having files for each library wich tells the name of the library, from where to download the source, where to unpack it, how to compile it, and everything pretty much like gentoo ebuilds, but for Windows.
--- Quote from: aggro ---We also have different GUI. You seem to follow the path of the dev-cpp and you have multiple output tabs. We are not planning to have more than 3 at most (compiler output, find in files, debug ). We also have no plans on adding workspace at all. Just one single project at a time.
--- End quote ---
So it seems like a stripped-down C::B in features.
You'll probably get a lot of feature requests by your users like:
Why can't I have more than one project at time...?
Why I can't compile DirectX...?
Can I use another compiler?
Where's the toolbar?
Where's the RAD editor for wxWidgets?
Why can't I use this IDE in any other system than Windows?
Just to remember you, sometimes more features (in the correct proportion) equals to more easy of use.
Good luck with OSS then!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version