Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:56 pm
Notepad also now i'm using Bloodshed Dev-C++.
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:40 pm
I'm actually using a makefile on a FAT32 drive shared between XCode, Visual Studio 2005 Express, and Code::Blocks.. I frequently feel too lazy to reboot into Linux to work on my OS.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:33 am
emacs
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:37 am
I use Notepad++ for my IDE and I've written a batch file to do my compiling dirty work. I like Notepad++ because it supports colour-coding for a variety of different programing languages, so I can make ASM Batch C and many more types of files without a separate IDE for each.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:29 am
VC++
Iz tza best
Iz tza best
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:55 am
I use "IDEx.dex" a IDE that runs on my OS.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:06 am
i do that, but organise the tree using windows explorer (h)01000101 wrote:I use Dev/C++ IDE for all my coding.
The adjustable tabbing feature makes my code look much neater.
and I use it for the project file tree.
and ms vc++ for asm (cos its default).
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:08 pm
Bash, Gnome-Terminal (URxvt's copy/paste finally drove me away), Gedit, GVim, Vim (when X is turned off), make, gcc, g++, binutils, nasm, fasm, Qemu, Bochs. True IDEs suck. If there's a "Build" thing that runs make, or a project/file browser, great, but when you put it all together, you get a slow, unorganized mess of menus and collapsible panels.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:42 pm
yep... and color syntaxing.Jeremiah Griffin wrote:Bash, Gnome-Terminal (URxvt's copy/paste finally drove me away), Gedit, GVim, Vim (when X is turned off), make, gcc, g++, binutils, nasm, fasm, Qemu, Bochs. True IDEs suck. If there's a "Build" thing that runs make, or a project/file browser, great, but when you put it all together, you get a slow, unorganized mess of menus and collapsible panels.
I couldn't image writing an OS in just a terminal window... that seems a bit hectic.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:46 pm
Notepad
N++
Bloodshed Dev-C++
N++
Bloodshed Dev-C++
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:53 pm
I did my 16-bit assembly OS + boot loader entirely without X. It was, actually, faster than it would have been with X.01000101 wrote:yep... and color syntaxing.Jeremiah Griffin wrote:Bash, Gnome-Terminal (URxvt's copy/paste finally drove me away), Gedit, GVim, Vim (when X is turned off), make, gcc, g++, binutils, nasm, fasm, Qemu, Bochs. True IDEs suck. If there's a "Build" thing that runs make, or a project/file browser, great, but when you put it all together, you get a slow, unorganized mess of menus and collapsible panels.
I couldn't image writing an OS in just a terminal window... that seems a bit hectic.
As for being hectic, no way. If you're proficient with Screen and Vim, it's easy to stay organized and focused.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:59 pm
I use VIM plus the vim command 'map #5 ^[:w ^M:make! run^M:cope 8^M' for command line Linux programming. And eclipse for java and VS for Windows.
This runs make run, if an error occurs during the compilation it goes to the line that the error occurred on and shows a description of the error, if no error occurs the compiled program runs and then the output of the program is then shown (if the output is in the correct format, you can trace the steps that the program took) which is mapped to F5.
This runs make run, if an error occurs during the compilation it goes to the line that the error occurred on and shows a description of the error, if no error occurs the compiled program runs and then the output of the program is then shown (if the output is in the correct format, you can trace the steps that the program took) which is mapped to F5.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:56 am
I usually run my shell-only tools in X / Konsole, but mostly because I like to have music or a movie playing in a small window, ICQ in the background etc. (Too little sensory input and I tend to get bored / sidetracked.) Everything else - switching terminals, syntax highlighting, edit / make / test / edit without leaving the editor etc., I could have on a non-X terminal too.Jeremiah Griffin wrote:I did my 16-bit assembly OS + boot loader entirely without X. It was, actually, faster than it would have been with X.01000101 wrote:I couldn't image writing an OS in just a terminal window... that seems a bit hectic.
As for being hectic, no way. If you're proficient with Screen and Vim, it's easy to stay organized and focused.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:53 am
Visual C++, for both applications and OS dev
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:38 am
That's what mpg321 and Finch are for!Solar wrote:I usually run my shell-only tools in X / Konsole, but mostly because I like to have music or a movie playing in a small window, ICQ in the background etc. (Too little sensory input and I tend to get bored / sidetracked.) Everything else - switching terminals, syntax highlighting, edit / make / test / edit without leaving the editor etc., I could have on a non-X terminal too.
