cannot build opencobol-1.1 under cygwin
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Spin-off
Next: In praise of compiler writers
From: Pete Dashwood on 17 Apr 2010 09:02 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article > <84aeba39-2d2b-4fff-96b6-e35b7ad3fcf1(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > > [snip] > >> In 1983 Paul Allen gave a talk at COMDEC (I think it was) about 'the >> next version (2) of MS-DOS' where he promised various features such >> as 'Help' (which did appear in MS-DOS 5). One thing that was >> promised was command line editing and history (which was already in >> Unix and DRI's CP/M-86 and other). > > My memory is, admittedly, porous, perhaps e'en moreso when it comes to > two-and-a-half decades-old operating systems... but I seem to recall > being able to get back at least the last command line Enter'd by > pressing PF3. Yes, I thought that when I read Richard's post, but I saw little point in responding, as my posts just seem like a red rag to Richard, and it is not a particularly important part of the overall anti-MS diatribe. Still, I'm glad you did, Doc. Can I just add that PF3 works t this day in a DOS box under windows. > > [snip] > >> The way that 'competition' worked was that MS signed up its OEMs to >> the illegal (as determined later in court) Per-Box pricing scheme. In >> order to get _any_ MS software the OEM had to pay MS for every box >> sold regardless of what OS was installed (or none). So a DR-DOS >> machine still had to pay for MS-DOS as well. >> >> MS also illegally (as determined later in court) bundled MS-DOS and >> Windows 3.11 as one package so killing any DR-DOS market. >> >> You may call that 'competition' but then so is burning down your >> competitor's premises. I liked this analogy... It is graphic and original. > > Arson's legal position has been established for a bit longer than > software-bundling, as your own parenthetic notes might indicate. > :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 17 Apr 2010 09:04 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> My post was actually light-hearted, but as we are >> now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or >> GUI, I would choose GUI every time. > > I'm glad that often both are available, and I don't need to choose one > every time. Let me select the tool I want for a particular task. Yes, I wouldn't like it if there was NO CLI available. My comment was about being forced to hypothetically choose, and what my preference would be. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 17 Apr 2010 16:30 On Apr 18, 12:53 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > On Apr 14, 3:32 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Richard wrote: > >>> On Apr 14, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" > >>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>>> Daniel wrote: > >>>>> Anyone tried that ? > > >>>>> confugure ran OK, but make abends > > >>>>> -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y2k -MT > >>>>> libcob_la-screenio.lo - > >>>>> MD -MP -MF ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" -c -o > >>>>> libcob_la-screenio.lo `test -f ' > >>>>> screenio.c' || echo './'`screenio.c; \ > >>>>> then mv -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" > >>>>> ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Plo" > >>>>> ; else rm -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo"; exit 1; fi > >>>>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -march=i686 > >>>>> -mtune=pentium4 > >>>>> -finline- functions -fsigned-char -Wall -Wwrite-strings > >>>>> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y 2k -MT libcob_la-screenio.lo > >>>>> -MD > >>>>> -MP -MF .deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo -c screeni > >>>>> o.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/libcob_la-screenio.o > > >>>> <snipped diagnostics> > > >>>> Is it me? > > >>>> When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, then I realised it > >>>> wasn't. > > >>>> Are people still interacting with computers to do useful work in > >>>> this way? > > >>>> Is it true that "REAL" programmers only use command line > >>>> interfaces? > > >>>> This looks like a nightmare conceived by a very insecure techie, in > >>>> the interests of job security. > > >>>> Why would anyone inflict brain damage like this on themselves when > >>>> they don't HAVE to? > > >>>> I honestly can't see how a system that needs this kind of interface > >>>> can possibly be any use in this day and age. > > >>> Your inability to see has no influence on its usefulness. > > >> Absolutely. It does have influence on it's usefulness to me, > >> though... > > >>>> If it were me, the first thing I would do is write a GUI command > >>>> interface that hides all of this. > > >>>> Tick a few boxes, select a few options, click a button. > > >>> GUIs are for those who have no clue as to what is going on. > > >> Or those who want to deal with REAL problems rather than computer > >> interfaces. I guess in your book people who don't know how to use a > >> brace and bit or a hammer cannot be good carpenters, and yet master > >> tradesmen are building houses with power drills and nail guns. > > > Well, you completely missed the point there. > > > I mainly solve _real_ problems by building systems that have no need > > for a user interface at all. > > > The point of computers is that they automate processes. Why have a GUI > > so that things can be selected and clicked when the program can > > determine what those settings should be and just get on and do it. > > > If you have ever seen a house being built you will have noticed that > > they still use hammers and brace and bit as well as nail guns and > > power drills. > > >>> You probably missed that he mentioned 'configure' and 'make'. It is > >>> make that determines what is required to be done. There is no need > >>> for knowing which boxes to tick or which options to select, > >>> 'configure' works all that out for itself while 'make' takes all > >>> the actions that are necessary. > > >> I use 'make' in the windows environment all the time... through the > >> Windows interface. I CAN use it from a command line and have done so > >> on a few occasions when that made sense, but I PREFER not to. > > > As it happens I have a user interface where I can navigate around the > > files to the Makefile and press enter to run make to do all the > > compiles. > > > The point is that I don't need to select options and click checkboxes > > to get what is needed done. > > >>> I have all my compiles and other regular actions under 'make' so > >>> that I never need to tick boxes and select options. > > >>>> This just looks like too much work and eyestrain. > > >>> You obviously cannot tell the difference between a command line and > >>> a diagnostic. > > >> Maybe not in 'Nix, > > > Actually the diagnostics _were_ in Windows. > > >> but I don't claim expertise in that. Given that I worked > >> with computers for many years before display screens became > >> available, I'm not altogether unfamiliar with CLI, and I did work > >> with DOS on PCs before Windows became available. > > > I seldom used MS-DOS, only when I couldn't avoid it. MS-DOS was > > deliberately crippled to give a poor impression of command line > > interfaces. DRI's Multuiuser-DOS and DR-DOS had a decent command line > > editor which made the CLI much easier than fiddling with an IDE. > > >> My post was actually light-hearted, > > > No it wasn't. You made insulting and derogatory remarks. > > That was not the intention and I wrote it with tongue in cheek. Unfortunately, tongues and cheeks do not travel well over the internet. > You need to lighten up Richard. I am sure that racist jokes, too, are very funny, ... to other racists. > I don't think anyone was insulted or derogated (if there is such a word) by > my post. Well, obviously, you say you were. All I will say again is that it > was not my intention. It wasn't me that was insulted. I know who wrote the 'configure' and 'make' that you referred to and you called him: "a very insecure techie, in the interests of job security." and accused him of being brain damaged. Personal insults are not part of my humour. (except of you of course). ;-) > At least one other poster responded in the same vein as my original, so the > fact that it was not entirely serious was NOT lost on at least one other > person. I am not sure who you thought used 'the same vein', none that I can see. > I guess that makes it 1 all... > > > > >> but as we are > >> now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or > >> GUI, I would choose GUI every time. > > > Given a choice I would prefer no UI at all and the job just gets done. > > > Regular jobs get scripted and cronned. > > >> BUT, it is a personal preference, and I wouldn't argue that people > >> who disagree are wrong. > > > No, but you will call them "very insecure techie" and 'brain > > damaged'. > > Not in a serious post I wouldn't. > > Other than that, I think your points are fair. I'd like to know how you > psychically communicate with a computer so it doesn't need an interface,but > if you have managed to pull that off, "Good Luck!" > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Arnold Trembley on 17 Apr 2010 17:27 On 4/17/2010 7:53 AM, Pete Dashwood wrote: > (snip) > > Other than that, I think your points are fair. I'd like to know how you > psychically communicate with a computer so it doesn't need an interface,but > if you have managed to pull that off, "Good Luck!" > > Pete. I work with an application that receives structured messages from a network and responds in a similar way. It's entirely automated and the messages are not intended to be read by a human. If we want to see these messages we have to print out log records and decode them. I suppose you might call it a file/message interface (FMI?). I couldn't classify it as either a GUI or a CLI. If you forced me to choose between only those two alternatives, I would say it resembles a command line interface in some ways. Now if you're talking about the development environment for that application then I see a mixture of GUI and CLI. Kind regards, -- http://www.arnoldtrembley.com/
From: Richard on 17 Apr 2010 17:50
On Apr 18, 1:04 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > >> My post was actually light-hearted, but as we are > >> now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or > >> GUI, I would choose GUI every time. > > > I'm glad that often both are available, and I don't need to choose one > > every time. Let me select the tool I want for a particular task. > > Yes, I wouldn't like it if there was NO CLI available. My comment was about > being forced to hypothetically choose, and what my preference would be. It seems to me that it is Windows that forces a particular choice. Often there is no easy way to do things _without_ the GUI. Certainly it is possible to script the GUI, but that is rather a backass way of doing things. In systems that I use I can do stuff with scripts or stick a GUI (or TUI) on the front if needed, or do the whole thing as a GUI (eg with Glade). As I said, I seldom have to type in any commands, just navigate (as one may do in, say, a menu system or Windows Explorer) to a program or script (such as 'configure' or the Makefile) and execute by 'enter' or double click. Your assumptions about how others use systems that are not Microsoft Windows seems to be obsolete by decades. |