Warp wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> VC is no small 
>> download, not for those of us still struggling with dialup (I get 24Kpbs 
>> here :(...)
> 
>   Which is exactly why it sounds so stupid to immediately uninstall it
> right after he had downloaded and tested it, and just because of such
> a mundane reason.

It wasn't the only reason.

I had already struggled with the 2005 version, which would not link my 
project because the linker claimed to be unable to resolve a reference 
to one of the Windows API library calls.  This was after following all 
of the instructions that dealt with configuring it to build native 
Windows applications, and I did have the appropriate libraries specified 
in the linking.  I didn't uninstall VC 2005, but I did neglect to 
reinstall it after reinstalling WinXP a few weeks ago.

I later found that MSVC 2008 Express was available, and gave it a try.

After importing my project and attempting a build, it issued warnings 
for stupid things like the fact that an explicit recast might cause a 
loss of precision.  "No!  You're kidding!"

It also issued error messages because it couldn't find the database file 
that it generates for each project.  I went looking for the file, and it 
was right there, where the compiler claimed it couldn't find it.  Looked 
  up the error code in the help feature for possible reasons the 
compiler was denying the existence of a file.  The search feature in 
help couldn't find the error code in the docs.

Then I saw the line that indicated that OpenGL was lacking, and I 
decided at that point that getting the compiler to work wasn't going to 
be worth the trouble.  I probably could have copied the stuff over from 
my Watcom directory, true, but at that point I was getting rather 
annoyed at the whole package.

I might give it another shot on another day, when I have nothing better 
to do, but for now, I'll stick with what works.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial 
>>> mechanical components.
>>
>> So ... I can just simply drop a Ford engine into a Toyota? or use a 
>> steering wheel from a Corolla in a Focus? I had no idea...
> 
> no, but those are built out of pretty much all the same components.

Steel?  Yeah, I suppose.

> Like I said about OpenGL, it's not a "competitor's product",

Sure it is. Who do you think created it?  Then they opened the standard 
to make it competitive with MS.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I just try not to spend time on things that don't interest me. [I 
>> thought everybody else did too...]
> 
> The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.

And this is a "problem" because...?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Seriously, name any other company at all in any product range that 
> pushes other people's products.

Washing machine manufacturers seem awfully keen for you to use a 
particular brand of detergent...

[Similarly for cars and engine oil.]

However, that's clearly not a *competing* product. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

>> They could provider their own implementation,
> 
> Like they did with Java, and got sued?

They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make it 
incompatible. [You know, the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish trip.]

> Is OpenGL unavailable for Windows?  What, really, is the problem?

Indeed.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> I cringe any time I see Orchid display his ignorance.
> 
> World of Warcraft?  what kind of geek are you to not know Blizzard?! 
> they are the id of hack-and-slash games...

Obviously I've heard of WoW. [I'm in a clan full of people who *play* 
it!] I just hadn't heard of the guys who make it, that's all.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Do you think that OpenGL isn't a competitor to DirectX? Do you think that 
> DirectX isn't a reason some people buy or develop for Windows?

Or put another way...

Is DirectX available for Linux, for cool games?

Do non-programmers have to recompile every application
they use in Linux?

If GTK2HS binary windows distribution for GHC is
maintained by intermitent Linux volunteers who are having
trouble building for GHC 6.8.2 on Linux, and they just got
done doing a GTK2HS 6.8.1 that works fine, how many
months before they bother with a GTK2HS 6.8.2 for
Windows, even though GHC 6.8.2 is just a bugfix?

Aren't the answers, no, yes, and 3 months+ ?

Post a reply to this message

> Does Ford keep a few toyotas on the lot for you to test-drive too?

Most new car lots keep a small inventory of used trade-in cars
of all makes and models, though they usually go to auction after
a bit.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I just try not to spend time on things that don't interest me. [I 
> >> thought everybody else did too...]
> > 
> > The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.

> And this is a "problem" because...?

  Because when you express your ignorance about so many things which can
be considered common knowledge, it doesn't give a very favorable image.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.
> 
>> And this is a "problem" because...?
> 
>   Because when you express your ignorance about so many things which can
> be considered common knowledge, it doesn't give a very favorable image.

Now that actually made sense...


I wonder how all this common knowledge becomes "common"? I mean, how 
does "everybody" know all this? I guess it's because normal humans talk 
to other people. I generally don't - unless you count this newsgroup. 
Maybe that's the difference?

(Or maybe it's just that unlike normal people, I don't actually care 
about football, pop music, politics, economics, and other things.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message