OSDev.org

Combuster wrote:

Ameise wrote:insults do not quality as ad hominem attacks, unless the argument itself is an insult. Saying "you're dumb" is not an ad-hominem, but saying "You're wrong because you're dumb" is.

If it wasn't for the argument, I'll just conclude that you've been purposefully breaking forum rules then. Not that it matters for your reputation anymore.

You have three members opposing your point of view, of which two seniors. You have zero supporters. Apparently you need to call us names in an attempt to win the debate. I can't show you the light among this madness, but it'll be obvious to the more observant readers that you have lost this debate.

Just having finished reading the entire topic, I want to just say that I understand why GCC is proposed as "the most feasible choice" for OSDev, but is this really a debate? Ameise merely stated the reasons that he prefers VC++ (and the accompanying IDE, but this is of lesser importance) over GCC for his OS. Even though most of the people here don't agree to that choice or don't see the use of that, doesn't mean that he should be personally attacked for that. I do not think any less of Ameise after this topic, nor will I question his authority or knowledge in further topics on this forum because of this thread (but then again, I may not fall in the "more observant readers" category). It seems as if all his arguments are merely coming forth from personal opinion, rather than facts. I never read any of his posts in this topic stating that GCC is crap or MSVC is the best, he merely expressed his personal preference.

To get back on topic (well, on topic might not be the right word) and to add to the point of discussion around GCC being designed ("these days") for Linux, I think it's more circumstantial than actually a design choice. GCC is used on, and can target, a load of platforms, but one can't get around the fact that it is shipped with the majority of the Linux distributions out there. One could argue that a consequence of this is that developers using Linux (who are perhaps looking to contribute to a project) lean towards GCC and add features to it. Most of these developers are probably also Linux sympathisants (seeing as "the uninitiated" usually don't use anything other than Windows, and sometimes Macs) and spend more time on features that will sooner or later benefit the OS they are working on, causing these features to develop sooner than other features, making it seem as if it was dedicated to Linux. One could then again argue: if it seems to be dedicated to something (not necessarily Linux) and, be it due to circumstances or not, provides a "favoritism" towards something, is it actually dedicated towards it?

I'm not trying to troll this thread further, but rather to add a different perspective to the previous posts (and hopefully, somehow cool the engines ).

Ameise wrote:

Nessphoro wrote:No, actually you can view errors in the Output window, and with a simple perl script you can get your error highlighting from GCC.

Impossible: Perl is never simple.

Next round of flaming to commence shortly. Blanket statements == trouble.

@Nessphoro

Makefile does not require VS2012, you can also use QT creator, NetBeans, Eclipse, or command line. What is the benefit ?
VHD only woks on Windows 7 (XP & Vista are out)
Where Grub2 ?

I'm not saying you're wrong but I just keep my setup.

Syntax and error highlighting, as well as autocompletion, in KDevelop are more (or at least similary) awesome than (as) in MSVC, but everyone seems to be saying "blah, KDE IDE" and don't use it... while it is probably best one for *nixes. You don't need MSVC to have decent IDE, with decent highlighting and decent autocompletion, ya know?

Griwes wrote:You don't need MSVC to have decent IDE, with decent highlighting and decent autocompletion, ya know?

I know. Vim is completely sufficient for that.

Eh, you vim followers

Creature wrote:

Combuster wrote:

Ameise wrote:insults do not quality as ad hominem attacks, unless the argument itself is an insult. Saying "you're dumb" is not an ad-hominem, but saying "You're wrong because you're dumb" is.

If it wasn't for the argument, I'll just conclude that you've been purposefully breaking forum rules then. Not that it matters for your reputation anymore.

You have three members opposing your point of view, of which two seniors. You have zero supporters. Apparently you need to call us names in an attempt to win the debate. I can't show you the light among this madness, but it'll be obvious to the more observant readers that you have lost this debate.

Just having finished reading the entire topic, I want to just say that I understand why GCC is proposed as "the most feasible choice" for OSDev, but is this really a debate? Ameise merely stated the reasons that he prefers VC++ (and the accompanying IDE, but this is of lesser importance) over GCC for his OS. Even though most of the people here don't agree to that choice or don't see the use of that, doesn't mean that he should be personally attacked for that. I do not think any less of Ameise after this topic, nor will I question his authority or knowledge in further topics on this forum because of this thread (but then again, I may not fall in the "more observant readers" category). It seems as if all his arguments are merely coming forth from personal opinion, rather than facts. I never read any of his posts in this topic stating that GCC is crap or MSVC is the best, he merely expressed his personal preference.

To get back on topic (well, on topic might not be the right word) and to add to the point of discussion around GCC being designed ("these days") for Linux, I think it's more circumstantial than actually a design choice. GCC is used on, and can target, a load of platforms, but one can't get around the fact that it is shipped with the majority of the Linux distributions out there. One could argue that a consequence of this is that developers using Linux (who are perhaps looking to contribute to a project) lean towards GCC and add features to it. Most of these developers are probably also Linux sympathisants (seeing as "the uninitiated" usually don't use anything other than Windows, and sometimes Macs) and spend more time on features that will sooner or later benefit the OS they are working on, causing these features to develop sooner than other features, making it seem as if it was dedicated to Linux. One could then again argue: if it seems to be dedicated to something (not necessarily Linux) and, be it due to circumstances or not, provides a "favoritism" towards something, is it actually dedicated towards it?

I'm not trying to troll this thread further, but rather to add a different perspective to the previous posts (and hopefully, somehow cool the engines ).

I entirely expected to be flamed and attacked. Doesn't mean I like it, but I expected it. Unpopular opinions are unpopular, and most users here either (or both) use Unix or are developing Unix-like systems. I wasn't expecting the level of hostility for merely using Visual Studio, but whatever. Apparently, having a personal preference is a 'point of view' that needs to be argued against, and that the number of people with opposing or the same point of view matters (Combuster).

It's hard to have facts in regards to something such as 'the developers seem...'... it as certainly been my personal experience (as you said) that they don't seem to care about features that don't directly benefit projects that will inevitably be run on Linux. Whether or not my personal experience is the same as someone else's doesn't warrant them calling me a 'liar' (Combuster), regardless of whether or not said person is a 'senior member' (I don't look favorably upon seniority-based favoritism - just because you're a senior member doesn't mean that you're perfect). It is circumstantial, but the bias becomes evident via circumstance... the vast majority of the software is going to be built for Linux, so it inevitably becomes biased towards Linux. Whether or not that's a good thing is irrelevant and I haven't made a statement as to that. I most certainly, however, never said that GCC was -designed- for Linux originally (as much as Griwes and Brynet seem to claim). I think that they need to tone down the self-righteousness and GCC-fanatiscism a bit and actually read what I write before responding to it (as Brynet has admitted that he read one line, and replied immediately with a personal insult). However, righteousness runs deep, and when someone believes they're right to a strong degree, they are going to attack opposing opinions strongly, and ignore that they themselves are acting in a hypocritical manner (not saying that I'm innocent of that, but not saying other people are, either). I'd offer a truce in that regard, but I've already been rejected in that respect by the opposition group that formed, so I am just going to move on.

---

RE the Perl script, I am interested in seeing how it interoperates with MSVC. I was under the impression that the only means by which to interact with the IDE directly was editing the MSBuild scripts, but I am eager to be proven wrong in that respect. I know that in regards to the PS3 devkit (which can use GCC or SNC) they use heavily edited MSBuild scripts.

Locked.

Although the topic went off the rails a while ago, there are some relevant, objective posts mixed in there, so I'm not going to selectively delete posts and risk removing one side of the argument.

@gedd: Can I suggest that if you wish to provide a tutorial on this way of doing things, you create a wiki page under your own userspace? When you are happy that things work and they are finalised, you can always try to get feedback from the wiki forum on whether to incorporate this in to the main wiki. Despite the flaming, I'm sure that there are some who would find this information useful and it would be better for people to be able to be able to find it written in an objective way on the wiki than at the start of this flamefest.

Cheers,
Adam