Kenneth Albanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Well, let me pound on the other side of the ungulate for a moment: having
> a text-compilation based UI builder (PilRC) has some massive advantages
> over a visual one (MW Constructor), and I spent a lot of development time
> creating such an environment for the Mac using Rez, back in the good ol'
> days.
No argument from me. But there are applications for both and
the free development world just doesn't have the visual option.
> Put another way: it's not very easy to use macros and manifest constants
> in Constructor.
Mmph. I've mentally refiled all preprocessor tricks under
"terrible abomination" from "neat or useful hacks" after doing a stint
developing automatic semantic analyzers, as well as developing in
languages that aren't C. I suppose the rest of the C-programming world
disagrees with me, though.
- Nathan
- RE: gcc vs anything else Bryan Nystrom
- RE: gcc vs anything else Aaron Ardiri
- Re: gcc vs anything else Michael S. Davis
- RE: gcc vs anything else Todd Christensen
- Re: gcc vs anything else Tom Zerucha
- Re: gcc vs anything else Michael Obenland
- Re: gcc vs anything else Eric Cloninger
- Re: gcc vs anything else Ralf Beckers
- Re: gcc vs anything else Nathan J. Williams
- Re: gcc vs anything else Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: gcc vs anything else Nathan J. Williams
- Re: gcc vs anything else Chris Antos
- Re: gcc vs anything else Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: gcc vs anything else Aaron Ardiri
- Re: gcc vs anything else Aaron Ardiri
- Re: gcc vs anything else Aaron Ardiri
- RE: gcc vs anything else Fawcett, Mitch
- Re: gcc vs anything else Dave Lippincott
- Re: gcc vs anything else Murray Dowling
- Re: gcc vs anything else Aaron Ardiri
- Re: gcc vs anything else Michael S. Davis
