"Look! I learned a new c++ feature today, there has to be some way I can jam this in somewhere in my project."
Be careful! Don't do it just because it's possible, but for a reason. Focus on the project's task and not the language it is written in.
Your code might end up like that abc rhyme "the lazy brown fox...", if you think your program will be more complete if every c++ language feature is used.
I would really appreciate if you know of some place where I could get info on how to achieve
accelerated 3d with my matrox g400.
I compiled XFree 4.0.1 using the ports collection, since there were no binary packets for 4.0.1.
It's all this Linuxification on the net and in the press that makes all newbies ask questions about "linuxprograms" like bash and emacs and kde in linux-newsgroups, when they could get better help in more general unix-newsgroups. It also makes BSD-newbies miss a lot of help since they probably skip a lot of linux talk when searching for information. When will companies, press (and sometimes/.) remove the keyword "linux" when it has nothing to do with it?
The only thing that let's a windows installation remain on my harddisk is the existence of drivers for hardware I have. Those would really be interesting to see open sourced, so we can all port them to FreeBSD:) But they're probably not written by MS anyways, but by the hardware manufacturers, so I seem out of luck anyways.
By "Open", they mean they'll provide an ActiveX Control, DirectOS (formerly known as DOS), to include in your visual basic projects. Hence, you'll have complete direct access to the operating system.
Would it be an overwhelming cost to WC if they were to distribute 3.5 and 4.0 during a.0-transition? Hey, it's just cd's, they cost less than the delivery.
If high version numbers were of any significance, win2k would be superior to anything:) Versioning has a useage in real OS's, another proof is the lack of multiple DLL's with different versions in windows, where as UN*X can differentiate the so's with respect to their filename. (libc.so.3)
By promoting this closed source proprierty "RAD", you accept the possibility of losing everything, if say, w2k makes your application non-functioning, and inprise stops development of delphi and throws their source in the trash-can.
I was talking about QT and such, and QT is far more sofisticated than delphi. I would never see MFC, win32, or X programming as an alternative. Sure, I'd prefer Delphi to MFC, but that's because MFC sucks all the way to the M$-bank. Have you ever tried QT yourself?
How can a missing RAD alone keep someone off creating gui-applications? I think the word RAD is a buzzword. Sure, you can place out a button a few seconds faster in VB than QT, but how much time of the overall project-time does that account for? 2% ? (And then, VB and CB++4, (delphi?), don't have layoutmanagers for resolution independent widget-placement). I would like a poll on/. asking what's our preferred development environment, an IDE or "the usual collection" (emacs+gcc+gdb).
Dephi is a closed source proprierty IDE which Inprise has full controlling power over. There is no standardization commitee, no competitors. It was designed for Windows. I don't see how this application fits in in the free software community. The only reason I might understand is if your boss orders you to continue develop some windows program, and you could do it under unix, and then just recompile it under windows when it's complete.
I use the PalmOS daily to, and it does what it's supposed to very well. But it's not very interesting technically. So, you might call a slimmed OS which does just what is needed to be done superior, but not as funny. I haven't used the epoc32 for more than 5mins, only read som tech-specs, and I can bet on that creating a realtime OS is harder than a singleprocess one.
The homepage's roadmap talks about implementing gouraud shading etc. Wouldn't it be easier to port Mesa, which has already been ported to _lots_ of other platforms? What's the deal with re-implementing everything all over when it's just software?
Slashdot Mirror
to some extent
.. so the rest of the world understands what you're talking about. You know, even the united federation of planets uses the metric system.
And what does he do in the past?
as soon as the source is opened, all error handling suddenly dissappears
"Look! I learned a new c++ feature today, there has to be some way I can jam this in somewhere in my project."
Be careful! Don't do it just because it's possible, but for a reason. Focus on the project's task and not the language it is written in.
Your code might end up like that abc rhyme "the lazy brown fox...", if you think your program will be more complete if every c++ language feature is used.
did I forget about the adult version? sexy megapudding. :)
Here's the swedish version of the site: www.megapudding.com.
Check out FxTV and the hauppage card.
I guess not all of us here runs linux.
I would really appreciate if you know of some place where I could get info on how to achieve
accelerated 3d with my matrox g400.
I compiled XFree 4.0.1 using the ports collection, since there were no binary packets for 4.0.1.
It's all this Linuxification on the net and in the press that makes all newbies ask questions about "linuxprograms" like bash and emacs and kde in linux-newsgroups, when they could get better help in more general unix-newsgroups. /.) remove the keyword "linux" when it has nothing to do with it?
It also makes BSD-newbies miss a lot of help since they probably skip a lot of linux talk when searching for information.
When will companies, press (and sometimes
... or "double" quality.
But that's just rumours then.
The only thing that let's a windows installation remain on my harddisk is the existence of drivers for hardware I have. Those would really be interesting to see open sourced, so we can all port them to FreeBSD :) But they're probably not written by MS anyways, but by the hardware manufacturers, so I seem out of luck anyways.
By "Open", they mean they'll provide an ActiveX Control, DirectOS (formerly known as DOS), to include in your visual basic projects. Hence, you'll have complete direct access to the operating system.
If you check out dri.sourceforge.net you'll see that it's all linux *sigh*.
Not even theoretically I think. DRI uses kernel modules on linux, and therefore need rewriting for BSD.
Would it be an overwhelming cost to WC if they were to distribute 3.5 and 4.0 during a .0-transition? Hey, it's just cd's, they cost less than the delivery.
No, It's a brand, but I wasn't expecting anything else but maybe (score 2 funny) :)
Just do a pkg_add XFree86-4.0.tgz and it's yours :) (hopefully)
If high version numbers were of any significance, :)
win2k would be superior to anything
Versioning has a useage in real OS's, another
proof is the lack of multiple DLL's with different
versions in windows, where as UN*X can differentiate the so's with respect to their filename. (libc.so.3)
By promoting this closed source proprierty "RAD", you accept the possibility of losing everything, if say, w2k makes your application non-functioning, and inprise stops development of delphi and throws their source in the trash-can.
I was talking about QT and such, and QT is far more sofisticated than delphi. I would never see MFC, win32, or X programming as an alternative. Sure, I'd prefer Delphi to MFC, but that's because MFC sucks all the way to the M$-bank. Have you ever tried QT yourself?
How can a missing RAD alone keep someone off creating gui-applications? /. asking what's our preferred development environment, an IDE or "the usual collection" (emacs+gcc+gdb).
I think the word RAD is a buzzword. Sure, you can place out a button a few seconds faster in VB than QT, but how much time of the overall project-time does that account for? 2% ?
(And then, VB and CB++4, (delphi?), don't have layoutmanagers for resolution independent widget-placement).
I would like a poll on
Dephi is a closed source proprierty IDE which Inprise has full controlling power over.
There is no standardization commitee, no competitors. It was designed for Windows.
I don't see how this application fits in in the
free software community. The only reason I might
understand is if your boss orders you to continue develop some windows program, and you could do it under unix, and then just recompile it under windows when it's complete.
I use the PalmOS daily to, and it does what it's supposed to very well. But it's not very interesting technically. So, you might call a slimmed OS which does just what is needed to be done superior, but not as funny. I haven't used the epoc32 for more than 5mins, only read som tech-specs, and I can bet on that creating a realtime OS is harder than a singleprocess one.
The homepage's roadmap talks about implementing gouraud shading etc. Wouldn't it be easier to port Mesa, which has already been ported to _lots_ of other platforms? What's the deal with re-implementing everything all over when it's just software?