Command line operations

[W. eWatson]

Just how many billion commands does OW f77 have? Are they all listed in
one particular place with all their options?


wfl386
wlib
wlink
wfl
wbind
...

[dpb]

> ....

I've told you "where" a number of times... :)

--

[W. eWatson]

Tell me again.

[dpb]

It doesn't seem to take... :(

--

[W. eWatson]

Yes, I know. You'll just send me off to the maze of help files in binnt.
Perhaps after hours of diddling in there, I will have found them all.
So then you expect me to copy the pages into some Word document in some
orderly fashion, so that I'll have it all neat and at my disposal. Maybe
you might want me to publish it.

So there is no concise one to two pages of commands? You know like those
fold over cards that summarized matters.

Not only that there's no document that talks to the distinction between
use IDE doing heavy lifting, and commands as another choice. Am I right?
I would think for beginners, and i suspect there are very few, that
would be helpful.

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 1:55 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 7:48 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 11:59 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2011 8:40 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2011 9:25 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>>>>> Just how many billion commands does OW f77 have? Are they all
>>>>> listed in
>>>>> one particular place with all their options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wfl386
>>>>> wlib
>>>>> wlink
>>>>> wfl
>>>>> wbind
>>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> I've told you "where" a number of times... :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Tell me again.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to take... :(
>>
>> --
>>
> Yes, I know. You'll just send me off to the maze of help files in binnt.

...

No, there's the _ONE_ master index file I've pointed you at (it seems
must be at least) a dozen times that has links to all of the help files
in a single location.

The partial contents of the Chapter
Open Watcom FORTRAN Tools User's Guide
The Open Watcom FORTRAN 77 Compile and Link Utility
The Open Watcom Assembler
The Open Watcom Library Manager
...
The Open Watcom Exe2bin Utility
The Open Watcom Patch Utility
The Open Watcom Strip Utility
The Open Watcom Make Utility
The Touch Utility
The IDE2MAKE Utility

There are separate chapters/sections on the various others, including
the Linker and Debugger.

But, again, you can read the list as easily as I.

I'll say one more time, create a link to

c:\owatcom\binnt\fbooks.hlp

(where you must supply the drive\base directory for your installation)
and _use_ it. If that still is not good enough then you _will_ have to
do whatever it is you think will satisfy on your own, sorry. We can
only point you to the water hole, can't make you drink.

--

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 1:55 PM, W. eWatson wrote:

...

> Yes, I know. You'll just send me off to the maze of help files in binnt.

No, I sent you to _ONE_ file that has links to all the utilities and
English names/descriptions for them all in one table of contents.

> Perhaps after hours of diddling in there, I will have found them all. So
> then you expect me to copy the pages into some Word document in some
> orderly fashion, so that I'll have it all neat and at my disposal. Maybe
> you might want me to publish it.

You can do whatever you wish w/ the above links; I don't expect anything
expect at least a modicum of effort to use the tools that are there.

> So there is no concise one to two pages of commands? You know like those
> fold over cards that summarized matters.

That _precise_ form, no. A list of all utilities in one place, yes.

I'll note that for a small piece of code such as you've indicated your
messing with, it would seem unlikely you need anything other than the
compiler/librarian/linker and/or the compile-and-link utility (altho the
bug with it with library directives does limit its usefulness in that
case. I'm baffled by how that got into a distribution build myself.)

>
> Not only that there's no document that talks to the distinction between
> use IDE doing heavy lifting, and commands as another choice. Am I right?
> I would think for beginners, and i suspect there are very few, that
> would be helpful.

I don't know what that would be/do/say.

I have to admit I'm at a loss as to why all of this seems so mysterious
or complex; it's really no different than a MS or Intel or other
compiler vendor distribution. They all have a large number of utilities
packaged with them as well, it's not like Watcom is/was unique in that
regard.

OK, just for comparison the old Digital/Compaq Visual Fortran compiler
w/ Visual Studio put the following tree of executables on my system...

\msdev\bin\dfdev.exe
\msdev\bin\frmtedit.exe
\msdev\bin\modwiz.exe
\msdev\bin\msvcmon.exe
\msdev\bin\rc.exe
\msdev\bin\vcspawn.exe
\tools\bind.exe
\tools\depends.exe
\tools\dfview.exe
\tools\dobjview.exe
\tools\errlook.exe
\tools\fontedit.exe
\tools\guidgen.exe
\tools\hcrtf.exe
\tools\hcw.exe
\tools\irotview.exe
\tools\makehm.exe
\tools\mrbc.exe
\tools\oleview.exe
\tools\shed.exe
\tools\spyxx.exe
\tools\tstcon32.exe
\tools\uuidgen.exe
\tools\windiff.exe
\tools\zoomin.exe
\tools\winnt\cl32test.exe
\tools\winnt\ddespy.exe
\tools\winnt\pstat.exe
\tools\winnt\pview.exe
\tools\winnt\sr32test.exe
\df\bin\bitview.exe
\df\bin\decfor90.exe
\df\bin\df.exe
\df\bin\dfcdrom.exe
\df\bin\f77.exe
\df\bin\f90.exe
\df\bin\fl32.exe
\df\bin\fpp.exe
\df\bin\fpr.exe
\df\bin\fsc.exe
\df\bin\fsplit.exe
\df\bin\fsplit90.exe
\df\bin\reguser.exe
\vc\bin\bscmake.exe
\vc\bin\cvpack.exe
\vc\bin\cvtres.exe
\vc\bin\dumpbin.exe
\vc\bin\editbin.exe
\vc\bin\lib.exe
\vc\bin\link.exe
\vc\bin\mapsym.exe
\vc\bin\mc.exe
\vc\bin\midl.exe
\vc\bin\mktyplib.exe
\vc\bin\nmake.exe
\vc\bin\plist.exe
\vc\bin\prep.exe
\vc\bin\profile.exe
\vc\bin\rebase.exe

It didn't come w/ a foldout printed card, either.

--

[W. eWatson]

On 11/4/2011 12:48 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 1:55 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> ...
>
>> Yes, I know. You'll just send me off to the maze of help files in binnt.
>
> No, I sent you to _ONE_ file that has links to all the utilities and
> English names/descriptions for them all in one table of contents.

Yes, I've noticed it several times. It's almost hard to believe that you
would send anyone into that jungle. Keep reading.

>
>> Perhaps after hours of diddling in there, I will have found them all. So
>> then you expect me to copy the pages into some Word document in some
>> orderly fashion, so that I'll have it all neat and at my disposal. Maybe
>> you might want me to publish it.
>
> You can do whatever you wish w/ the above links; I don't expect anything
> expect at least a modicum of effort to use the tools that are there.

I don't think you realize how easy all this could be made to a newcomer.

First, you are looking at it through the eyes (yours) of having likely
been with OW for many years. That goes for a lot of other people here
too. You assume an awful lot.

Here's simple. As I said days ago, a simple "Hello, World" (HW) used
either in a command line setting or in IDE would go along way to get
someone started. Much pertinent knowledge can be gained quickly using
IDE as an example of HW getting to an executable program can be
described in less than a page. In fact, I explained it to a colleague
who will work with me in a single image of the IDE using arrows and
captions. Did it with SnagIt.

Instead you send me and probably others to your list of sources and the
hlp files. Just what a newcomer needs, lots, and lots of unnecessary
extras. It looks like the designers are option happy.

>
>
>> So there is no concise one to two pages of commands? You know like those
>> fold over cards that summarized matters.
>
> That _precise_ form, no. A list of all utilities in one place, yes.
>
> I'll note that for a small piece of code such as you've indicated your
> messing with, it would seem unlikely you need anything other than the
> compiler/librarian/linker and/or the compile-and-link utility (altho the
> bug with it with library directives does limit its usefulness in that
> case. I'm baffled by how that got into a distribution build myself.)

Well, you are right here. As soon as I saw the 3033 problem, I realized
there really isn't much to it. A handful of commands probably would do
the trick. However, it looks like the 3033 is a show stopper.

>
>>
>> Not only that there's no document that talks to the distinction between
>> use IDE doing heavy lifting, and commands as another choice. Am I right?
>> I would think for beginners, and i suspect there are very few, that
>> would be helpful.
>
> I don't know what that would be/do/say.
>
> I have to admit I'm at a loss as to why all of this seems so mysterious
> or complex; it's really no different than a MS or Intel or other
> compiler vendor distribution. They all have a large number of utilities
> packaged with them as well, it's not like Watcom is/was unique in that
> regard.

If that's right, I've got to wonder why others haven't found it too.
Again, it seems like a show stopper.

>
> OK, just for comparison the old Digital/Compaq Visual Fortran compiler
> w/ Visual Studio put the following tree of executables on my system...

Yeah, as if I can relate to that.

Neither did APL, Snobol, Algol, Comit, ..., C++. My point about the
card is why aren't these commands all in one place. They seem scattered
all over the place. Of course, as we just observed in my case, I
probably don't need more than a handful.

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 10:35 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 12:48 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 11/4/2011 1:55 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Yes, I know. You'll just send me off to the maze of help files in binnt.
>>
>> No, I sent you to _ONE_ file that has links to all the utilities and
>> English names/descriptions for them all in one table of contents.
>
> Yes, I've noticed it several times. It's almost hard to believe that you
> would send anyone into that jungle. Keep reading.

...

Nonsense.

I'm done.

<plonk>

--

[W. eWatson]

Figures.

[dpb]

I've answered every question (some at great length); pointed you to the
solution to every problem. Seems no point in continuing since can't
seem to satisfy.

--