[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Texmacs-dev] Re: C++'s frustrations

From: Abdelrazak Younes
Subject: [Texmacs-dev] Re: C++'s frustrations
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:34:32 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

Henri Lesourd wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

MSVC is really the defacto standard (KDE, python, LyX, etc all use it). I don't see the problem here. In any case, I think, but I am not sure, Borland and Intel compilers are compatible while Mingw's g++-3.2 is not

Thus there is a problem: we need to go into the
business of telling plugins implementors which
tool to use.

No need to tell, just state it on your "plugin development" web page, that's all. Choosing a compiler is the job of the plugin developer, not yours.

The problem is that in such a situation, ultimately
it's the *final user* which will have to deal with
these issues: he will have a TeXmacs installed,
download a plugin, and then he will need to be
able to figure out that this compiler compatibility
problem *exists* (first), and then figure out how
he can obtain the address@hidden related info...

especially nowadays where you can have free (as in beer) compiler on all platforms.

Free is not the only criterion: not forcing users to
think about issues they should never have to enter in
the first place is another important point.

It's the very point M$ understood perfectly, and
that OSS operating systems repeatedly missed since
the very beginning, by the way...

So just standardize on one compiler (MSVC on Windows and gcc > 3.3) on Unix) and be done with it. I don't think (read I am pretty sure) that the user will encounter any problem. And as Josef said, inside TeXmacs, you can check the compiler used before loading the plugins and if the plugin doesn't match the requirement just display an informative error box saying why the plugin cannot be loaded.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]