| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Aug 7, 3:43 pm, Dilip <rdil...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 9:18 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 9:43 pm, Sousuke <s0s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > VS is the only development tool I have installed, and > > > Windows's "Command Prompt" doesn't even appear in the > > > commonly-used apps section of my Start menu. > > And? If you don't have access to any of the tools necessary > > to do the job, you don't develop serious software. > > Let's be honest about this. If you're doing all the work, > > rather than writing simple scripts to do much of it, then you're > > wasting a lot of your time. For simple, repetitive tasks, the > > machine is a lot better than you are. > I must have somehow got into people's killfile without ever having > posted so much in the NG, but I will persist. James, this "scripting > tasks" that you keep talking about, have you ever considered writing > them with Powershell? It's not installed on my windows machines  .Seriously, it could possibly be an alternative, although much of what I use CygWin for is awk or sed---the tools, and not just the shell. Another alternative (the one that is officially accepted here) is perl. Anytime the scripts become part of the official build process, I have to convert them to perl. The fact is, however, that I know AWK, sed and company very well, and in so far as I have to install an external tool to do the job, I might as well install one which I know. (If the tool were bundled, or even officially installed by the company, the issues would be different.) And the real issue isn't CygWin vs. some other set of command line utilities (I'll admit that CygWin has a lot of problems), it's using command line utilities and scripts vs. some sort of pre-digested click and point that doesn't do half of what you need, and gets its dependencies screwed up as well as soon as there is generated code. > MSBuild is Microsoft's version of Ant and you can invoke > Powershell scripts from that and perform whatever the heck you > want. So I've heard. The choice of ant was at least partially based on portability. And wasn't mine---I know GNU make, which while ugly as sin, does get the job done. But in this case, portability was one of the requirements---we currently maintain two versions of the build procedure, one in VS project files, and one in GNU makefiles, and keeping them synchronized is a bit of a hassle. The nice thing about ant is that the input format is simple enough that even the Windows programmers accept it. > Powershell can also be used to write repetitive tasks the > Ian Collins asked about in another thread. I noticed another poster > named Ralph also mentioned this elsethread but expectedly that wasn't > taken up either. Is there simply a refusal to look at what is > available on Windows and simply parrot Cygwin as a solution to any > problem? No. I haven't been following this thread in detail, and only respond to it when I happen to notice some particularly stupid comment (and not always then, either). I know that Microsoft is evolving, and that they do have a number of interesting tools, but again, they're not bundled, and they're not installed here. (The only thing that is officially installed is Visual Studios and perl.) And since we do have to support Linux platforms, and a few old Solaris machines as well, portability is an issue for anything that we do have to install. -- James Kanze |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 17/08/2010 11.55, James Kanze wrote:
[...] >> MSBuild is Microsoft's version of Ant and you can invoke >> Powershell scripts from that and perform whatever the heck you >> want. > > So I've heard. The choice of ant was at least partially based > on portability. And wasn't mine---I know GNU make, which while > ugly as sin, does get the job done. But in this case, > portability was one of the requirements---we currently maintain > two versions of the build procedure, one in VS project files, > and one in GNU makefiles, and keeping them synchronized is a bit > of a hassle. The nice thing about ant is that the input format > is simple enough that even the Windows programmers accept it. > >> Powershell can also be used to write repetitive tasks the >> Ian Collins asked about in another thread. I noticed another poster >> named Ralph also mentioned this elsethread but expectedly that wasn't >> taken up either. Is there simply a refusal to look at what is >> available on Windows and simply parrot Cygwin as a solution to any >> problem? > > No. I haven't been following this thread in detail, and only > respond to it when I happen to notice some particularly stupid > comment (and not always then, either). *Ditto*. The else-thread mentioned above was in reply to me. And seemed just in the spirit of pointing out an ulterior tool ("you might take a look at Windows PowerShell") so I didn't feel like replying with why *I* do not use it. But since Dilip is suspicious  , here we go. As far as I'mconcerned the issue is: they tend to invent the world and by the time you have learned something on it they already have a new beast. And I aim at portability. So, while I might take a look at their proprietary things, they are almost never the solution of choice for my programming tasks. Satisfied, Dilip? -- Gennaro Prota | name.surname yahoo.com Breeze C++ (preview): <https://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/> Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Vladimir Jovic wrote:
> joe wrote: >> jacob navia wrote: >>> Vladimir Jovic a écrit : >>>> Neat. I have to download windows from somewhere and install just to >>>> see how it reads my mind which variable I want to show >>>> >>>> I must admit that I do not run debugger often (once per month), and >>>> I am using only ddd, therefore my "debugger experience" is >>>> outdated. >>> The debugger I wrote uses a simple algorithm: >> >> I can use that skill. "Send me your resume". Joke is: it's a joke! >> "Inside joke" is, it's a joke! >> >>> Extract all the identifiers from the current expression. >>> You get the current expression from the line number, that is part >>> of the debug information and even gdb knows it. >>> >>> Then, show all those identifiers in the "Autos" window together with >>> their values. >> >> That is quite detailed a description. (Tends to bore me, not meaning >> to offend, but I certainly offen do, 'twas no intent meant (not to >> give <>'s ANYTHING!). Whateever, I don't care. >> >>> This is a VERY simple algorithm that will work in 90% of the cases. >>> If the identifier has no debug info, drop it, since it is probably >>> a macro. >> >> I'm sure it is important, but I'm only buying, so I don't believe >> you. (rhetorical). >> >>> As you can see, >> >> Uh oh, I sense reason to question now... you are telling him what he >> can see?? Nuff said. Drop the spiel dude. It's 2020 and no one falls >> for it anymore. >> >> > > jacob navia = troll. That summarizes all my replies "Ya'll" say that anytime "ya don't get" something. "Trolls" don't modify/repurpose compilers, ya think? |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
