IDE for DJGPP?
Paul Silver
there is a nice one called xwpe for X11R6 but what about DOS/Windows?
I'm trying to escape Borland but haven't felt like it for lack of a nice
integrated package with an actually easy to use debugger.
Thanks in advance,
Paul Silver
Chris McFarlane
Paul,
check out E! programming editor in a simtel mirror under the .../win3/editor
path. Very nice IMHO, but integrating a debugger isn't truely IDE like. E!
is shareware at around $100 USD. The same path also has a cheaper Brief like
editor Zeusv105. The ladebug FS debugger isn't commercial standard, but for
free is ok by me. Laydebug is on the Djgpp site.
Chris
FRI...@uriacc.uri.edu
>Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of an IDE for DJGPP? I know
>there is a nice one called xwpe for X11R6 but what about DOS/Windows?
>
>I'm trying to escape Borland but haven't felt like it for lack of a nice
>integrated package with an actually easy to use debugger.
>
Yes, this has been a major concern of mine, too. Sure, DJGPP is the BEST C/C++
Compiler anywhere, but I still use Borlands IDE for my programming. I think it
would be a VERY worthwhile project to code a good IDE completely in GNU C and
release it under the GNU or DJGPP licence. No need to bother our good friends
the DJGPP development team for this, though. Any takers on this project? I'd
be interested in helping out, though my current schedule limits my time greatly
and therefore, at least for a while, I can't take a leading role...
There certaintly are plenty of decent programmer's editors out there, but I
think it would be a good move to release one in the DJGPP distribution for
those who never owned Borland's products. Since the goal of Version 2 is to
have DJGPP be totally boot-strapping, it should have its own editor.
Documentation runs along the same lines. Once DJGPP supports Win95, a Win95
help format of the docs should be made. Again, I'd be happy to help out
anybody undertaking this project.
As for the GNU debugger, a glitzier interface would be a plus. Right now,
it takes a lot longer to debug a GNU program then a Borland-compiled program,
because, although the GNU debugger compares in capabilities, it is very
difficult to learn (and I'm sick of typing 20 to 30 character variable and
function names, where's my point and click interface? :) Again, I'd be happy to
help out if I could, but somehow I don't think I'm quite skilled enough at
protected mode progrsamming to be of much use... :)
Anyway, a question, can gdb be used on non-gnu compiled exe's? As far as I
know, no, but I thought I'd ask anyways...
Eli Zaretskii
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 FRI...@URIACC.URI.EDU wrote:
> Yes, this has been a major concern of mine, too. Sure, DJGPP is the BEST C/C++
> Compiler anywhere, but I still use Borlands IDE for my programming. I think it
> would be a VERY worthwhile project to code a good IDE completely in GNU C and
> release it under the GNU or DJGPP licence. No need to bother our good friends
What's wrong with DOS port of Emacs? It *is* compiled with DJGPP, is
under GNU GPL (i.e. free to use) and also exists under Unix/Linux, so you
can switch environments and remain sane.
> Documentation runs along the same lines. Once DJGPP supports Win95, a Win95
> help format of the docs should be made. Again, I'd be happy to help out
> anybody undertaking this project.
A converter is available from the Texinfo format used by GNU/DJGPP
documentation to MSWin RTF format. Somebody posted info about such a
converter to this newsgroup (you can see it by searching the newsgroup
archives on www.delorie.com, see the FAQ for instructions on how to do
this). I assume it should be easy to convert RTF to HLP.
> it takes a lot longer to debug a GNU program then a Borland-compiled program,
> because, although the GNU debugger compares in capabilities, it is very
> difficult to learn (and I'm sick of typing 20 to 30 character variable and
> function names, where's my point and click interface? :) Again, I'd be happy to
While definitely not a substitute for point-and-click, GDB does have some
help for typing long names. It's called ``completion''. You can look it
up in the GDB docs, but in a nutshell: try typing part of a name, then
press `?' (to see the possible names which start with what you typed) or
TAB (GDB will complete the name as much as it can).
Myles Barrett Williams
>under GNU GPL (i.e. free to use) and also exists under Unix/Linux, so you
>can switch environments and remain sane.
It's not a question of what's wrong with Emacs, rather what is wrong with
DOS. There is no multitasking, so Emacs is not as useful for development
as it is under Unix.
'sides, it's not helpful to advise someone to learn a new OS to remedy a
problem that's not OS specific.
Myles Williams "When you see me again, it won't be me."
ALAN L HIGHTOWER
On 22 Sep 1995, Paul Silver wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of an IDE for DJGPP? I know
> there is a nice one called xwpe for X11R6 but what about DOS/Windows?
> I'm trying to escape Borland but haven't felt like it for lack of a nice
> integrated package with an actually easy to use debugger.
xwpe can be compiled for DOS. It includes DJGPP support through a
makefile define. Under the DJGPP compile though, debugging support
doesn't exist.
Paul Shirley
writes:
>under GNU GPL (i.e. free to use) and also exists under Unix/Linux, so you
>can switch environments and remain sane.
Whats wrong is that most PC programmers have seen and used editors with
much better interfaces. emacs and gdb may be very powerful tools but so
are Brief and Turbo Debugger, and they are a hell of a lot easier to use.
Some months ago I discussed this with RMS. The result, nothings likely to
change since he (and no doubt others at the FSF) refuse to even look at
commercial software, let alone use any of the ideas.
Luckily Brief (and PFE for Windoze) make a reasonable job of working with
GNU C (djgcc included)
--
Paul Shirley: too lazy to change this sig.
Roberto Mariottini
remember I had some problem in spawning many programs with djgpp V1.2, because
the IDE has to spawn make that spawns gcc thath spawns others. When I first
known of DJGPP V2 development I stopped working on it.
Now I have DJGPP V2 and I can continue...
I have to redo porting of DFLAT library that I've done for V1.2, then I will get
full SAA-CUA & MDI editor. Support for compiler is based on makefiles and
response files as parameters.
If anyone want to Know, please e-mail me.
Ciao,
--
Roberto Mariottini | Roberto Mariottini
studente di Scienze dell'Informazione | Computer Science student
Universita` di Bologna | Bologna University, Italy
e-mail: mari...@cs.unibo.it
WWW URL: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~mariotti/index.html
Andreas Busse
>
> I've tried to develop an IDE for DJGPP, and I have all my work somewhere. I
> remember I had some problem in spawning many programs with djgpp V1.2, because
> the IDE has to spawn make that spawns gcc thath spawns others. When I first
> known of DJGPP V2 development I stopped working on it.
> Now I have DJGPP V2 and I can continue...
> I have to redo porting of DFLAT library that I've done for V1.2, then I will get
> full SAA-CUA & MDI editor. Support for compiler is based on makefiles and
> response files as parameters.
> If anyone want to Know, please e-mail me.
>
Yes, I would be interested in such a beast! Do you plan to make
it available in source?
Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Busse | an...@soft-n-hard.de
Soft N Hard GbR | Phone: +49 2636-970105
Im Hufen Boden 16, D-53498 Waldorf | Fax: +49 2636-970106
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark T. Gray
Mark T. Gray
of typo's). The following is from a reply on one of the linux newsgroups
(in case people missed it):
the class library that was written for HexEd (on sunsite; it's a binary
editor application) looks almost exactly like turbovision 1.0. it also
claims to be multi-platform (linux/dos)... grab HexEd and run it and
compare..
Sorry about the double posting, I screwed up somehow.
Iota (Tom Wenisch)
>> There certaintly are plenty of decent programmer's editors out there, but
>> think it would be a good move to release one in the DJGPP distribution for
>> those who never owned Borland's products. Since the goal of Version 2 is to
>> have DJGPP be totally boot-strapping, it should have its own editor.
>
>preferable editor. New users probably don't wish to use/learn a VI or
>emacs clone whereas unix users probably do.
Well, just because we provide an editor doesn't mean we require it. I know
plenty of Borland users who have skipped the IDE. Considering the level of
integration between Borland's IDE and compiler, an IDE loosely connected to
DJGPP would help
>Also user customizeable context highlighting is also a priority of mine. I
>think this comes down to a Easy AND Smart editor. My personal preference is
>for a multi-window VI editor with some kind of C/C++ context highlighting
>capability.
>
>I don't think the highlighting should be limited to C/C++ only. There should
>be some kind of library/database for different languages.
>
I agree entirely. If you're gonna bother writing a decent editor, you want
it to be configurable enough to work with ANYTHING, not just DJGPP.
>
>PS. I use VI because it is the default editor on most unix boxes and I hate
>swapping between different editors between platforms. A good VI clone would
>execpt the normal command keys but would also be graphics based, multiwindow
>and MENU-DRIVEN (to make it easier for first timers).
>
>Brendan.
>
When DJGPP can write Win95 programs, it might be worthwhile to kome up with a
Win95 editor (or at least some level of graphical equivalent). Perhaps we
could clone some X-Windows editor (I wouldn't know, never used X).
What else do people think. Project worthwhile, waste of time? Portability
a big thing? Clone a different editor and then "DOS-ify" it for newbies? Use
a graphical platform?
-Iota (Tom Wenisch)
Aaron Ucko
>Win95 editor (or at least some level of graphical equivalent). Perhaps we
>could clone some X-Windows editor (I wouldn't know, never used X).
>
>
> What else do people think. Project worthwhile, waste of time? Portability
>a big thing? Clone a different editor and then "DOS-ify" it for newbies? Use
>a graphical platform?
I'd recommend using JED (space.mit.edu:/pub/davis/jed/*); it has flexible
color syntax highlighting, a few emulations (Emacs, Brief, and EDT, but
not VI, although the latter probably wouldn't be too hard to write), a
powerful extension language, and DJGPP support (it's already a makefile
option, and JED can parse GCC messages).
-- Aaron Ucko (uc...@vax1.rockhurst.edu; finger for PGP public key) | httyp!
"That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."
-- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ | Geek Code 3.1 [for explanation, finger
hay...@mankato.msus.edu]: GCS/M/S/C d- s: g+ a17 C++(+++)>++++ UL++>++++ P++
L++>+++++ E- W(-) N++(+) o+ K- w--- O M@ V-(--) PS++(+++) PE- Y(+) PGP(+) t(+)
!5 X-- R(-) tv-@ b++(+++) DI+ !D(--) G++(+++) e->+++++(*) h!>+ r-(--)>+++ y?
Terence Abbott
>
>Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of an IDE for DJGPP?
I know
>there is a nice one called xwpe for X11R6 but what about DOS/Windows?
>
>I'm trying to escape Borland but haven't felt like it for lack of a nice
>integrated package with an actually easy to use debugger.
>
>
>Paul Silver
Having used Borland since its first release and DJGPP for the past 3
years, the overwhelming advantage of using Borland for code development
is its debugger. It typically takes me 3-4 times longer to find
a problem using gbd or ladybug than it does with Borland. My current
development environment is Borland with the PharLap DOS extender. If
an equivalent debugger (with graphics support) were available for DJGPP,
I'd probably switch over to it for both development and run-time code
generation.
So to me, the big argument for the Borland IDE is NOT THE EDITOR, it is
the capabilities of the debugger.
Disclaimer: Note that neither I nor NASA is endorsing Borland or PharLap.
Eli Zaretskii
On 24 Sep 1995, Myles Barrett Williams wrote:
> It's not a question of what's wrong with Emacs, rather what is wrong with
> DOS. There is no multitasking, so Emacs is not as useful for development
> as it is under Unix.
The same limitation afflicts *any* DOS-based IDE, so Emacs is as useful
in this area as the other editors. (Actually, there are some DOS editors
which allow multitasking--in fact I work with an Emacs clone which does
just that--but as they are commercial, I won't advertise them here. RMS
once suggested me to write a DOS multitasking module which will make
Emacs multitask under DOS, but I don't have enough time. Anybody?)
Anyway, the DOS port does support compiling from within the editor and
stepping through error messages, which IMHO allows you to use it as
development environment.
> 'sides, it's not helpful to advise someone to learn a new OS to remedy a
> problem that's not OS specific.
Did I advise to learn a new OS? I was talking about DOS port of Emacs;
no need to switch to another OS to use it.
Eli Zaretskii
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Paul Shirley wrote:
> >What's wrong with DOS port of Emacs? It *is* compiled with DJGPP, is
> >under GNU GPL (i.e. free to use) and also exists under Unix/Linux, so you
> >can switch environments and remain sane.
>
> Whats wrong is that most PC programmers have seen and used editors with
> much better interfaces. emacs and gdb may be very powerful tools but so
> are Brief and Turbo Debugger, and they are a hell of a lot easier to use.
I won't want to start a religious war here, but when did you last looked
at Emacs? The latest version 19.29 has menus, color syntax highlighting
and mouse support, to name just a few issues which traditionally were
seen as ``deficiences'' as opposed to the editors you mention.
Paul Shirley
>I'd recommend using JED (space.mit.edu:/pub/davis/jed/*); it has flexible
>color syntax highlighting, a few emulations (Emacs, Brief, and EDT, but
>not VI, although the latter probably wouldn't be too hard to write), a
>powerful extension language, and DJGPP support (it's already a makefile
>option, and JED can parse GCC messages).
I'd recommend someone work out why it runs so much slower under messydos
then. I compiled it up last week and deleted it half an hour later, under
Linux it worked well, under DOS I could outtype it.
Andreas Busse
>
> So to me, the big argument for the Borland IDE is NOT THE EDITOR, it is
> the capabilities of the debugger.
>
It's not a problem of gdb, it's a problem of the front end.
If you ever tried xxgdb (admittedly not available for dos AFAIK)
you'll know what I mean.
Andreas Busse
Hi,
>
> I won't want to start a religious war here, but when did you last looked
> at Emacs? The latest version 19.29 has menus, color syntax highlighting
> and mouse support, to name just a few issues which traditionally were
> seen as ``deficiences'' as opposed to the editors you mention.
>
Do you mean that the *real* emacs (not micro emacs) is available
for DOS ? Eventually for Windoze too ? Really ? That would be
the best news to me since years :-) Where can I get it?
Eli Zaretskii
On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Andreas Busse wrote:
> Do you mean that the *real* emacs (not micro emacs) is available
> for DOS ? Eventually for Windoze too ? Really ? That would be
> the best news to me since years :-) Where can I get it?
Yes, *real* Emacs!
ftp://ftp.coast.net/SimTel/vendors/gnu/gnuish/emx1929?.zip
(you can skip emx1929s.zip if you don't need the sources, but grab
everything else, including emx19291.zip which is a patch to emx1929b.zip).
You should generally expect every command which forks other programs to
not work in the DOS port (compilation is the most notable exception), but
other things work, including menus and syntax highlighting. Things which
don't make sense in a non-windowed environment (like frames) also don't
work.
There is also a port of Lucid Emacs 19.6 to MS-Windows called Win-Emacs;
you can get it at cica mirrors as wemdemo[1-4].zip.
Andreas Busse
>
> > Do you mean that the *real* emacs (not micro emacs) is available
> > for DOS ? Eventually for Windoze too ? Really ? That would be
> > the best news to me since years :-) Where can I get it?
>
> Yes, *real* Emacs!
> [...]
I am EXCITED !
Thanks a lot. You made my day :-)
Cheers,
Brian Hawley
>
>On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Andreas Busse wrote:
>
>> for DOS ? Eventually for Windoze too ? Really ? That would be
>> the best news to me since years :-) Where can I get it?
>
>Yes, *real* Emacs!
>You should generally expect every command which forks other programs to
>not work in the DOS port (compilation is the most notable exception), but
>other things work, including menus and syntax highlighting. Things which
>don't make sense in a non-windowed environment (like frames) also don't
>work.
Now that we have DOS covered, is there a WinNT port of 19.29? The latest
version that I have found is 19.17, but the syntax hilighting sounds good.
There shouldn't be any reason why the restrictions that you mention for the
DOS port should apply (WinNT is windowed and multitasking), and it should be
easy to run on Win95 (most of the other WinNT apps that I've tried work).
Where could I find such a beast?
Brian Hawley
bha...@luc.edu
William Tanksley
:"Aaron Ucko" writes:
:I'd recommend someone work out why it runs so much slower under messydos
:then. I compiled it up last week and deleted it half an hour later, under
:Linux it worked well, under DOS I could outtype it.
I've got the precompiled version-- no problems. It's very fast. I can't
imagine what your problem might be.
:Paul Shirley: too lazy to change this sig.
-Billy
Hartmut Schirmer
>
>Hi,
>
> >
> > I won't want to start a religious war here, but when did you last looked
> > at Emacs? The latest version 19.29 has menus, color syntax highlighting
> > and mouse support, to name just a few issues which traditionally were
> > seen as ``deficiences'' as opposed to the editors you mention.
> >
>
>for DOS ? Eventually for Windoze too ? Really ? That would be
>the best news to me since years :-) Where can I get it?
I don't know the exact place, but PEARL Software released an windows
port of EMACS (Lucid GNU Emacs 19.6 based). Look out for wemdemo[1-4].zip
--
Hartmut Schirmer | E-Mail: h...@techfak.uni-kiel.d400.de
Automatisierungs- u. Regelungstechnik, | http://www.techfak.uni-kiel.de/~hsc
Technische Fakult"at, Universit"at Kiel, |
Kaiserstr. 2, D-24143 Kiel, Germany, | Phone: +49-431-77572-245 FAX: -285
Paul Shirley
>Paul Shirley <P...@chocolat.demon.co.uk> wrote to all:
>:I'd recommend someone work out why it runs so much slower under messydos
>:then. I compiled it up last week and deleted it half an hour later, under
>:Linux it worked well, under DOS I could outtype it.
>
>I've got the precompiled version-- no problems. It's very fast. I can't
>imagine what your problem might be.
The mystery deepens... I've just recompiled it several different ways
and its running fine now. The only thing I can think of is that the setup
for gccpsx (a gcc crosscompiler) interfered with djgcc, although normally
it simply refuses to compile till I alter the setup. (Although this being
the PC maybe the phase of the moon had more to do with it...:)
With the speed problem vanished, Brief emulation is fairly good so I'm
fairly happy to recommend jed.
--
Devin Leung
and allows you to configure it for the compiler. It can be found on Compuserve, don't
know where to get it on the net though.
Devin Leung
dleu...@kepler.poly.edu
John E. Davis
: With the speed problem vanished, Brief emulation is fairly good so I'm
: fairly happy to recommend jed.
Are you using brief.sl? I wrote it based on a description of brief
keybindings that someone sent me. However, I have not really had any
feedback regarding the emulation. I expected to take several iterations to
get a faithful emulation but, due to the lack of feedback, brief.sl has not
evolved. I am sure I did not get it right on the first iteration!
--John
Boon van der RJ
: You could also try out Boxer 7.0 for DOS by David Hamel. It has syntax
: and allows you to configure it for the compiler. It can be found on
: Compuserve, don't
: know where to get it on the net though.
You can find it (with many other editors) at any simtel-archive:
msdos/editors
RJ vd Boon
John E. Davis
: As for the GNU debugger, a glitzier interface would be a plus. Right now,
: it takes a lot longer to debug a GNU program then a Borland-compiled program,
: because, although the GNU debugger compares in capabilities, it is very
: difficult to learn (and I'm sick of typing 20 to 30 character variable and
: function names, where's my point and click interface? :) Again, I'd be happy to
: protected mode progrsamming to be of much use... :)
Strange. I have had the exact opposite experience. I am able to debug a
program much quicker using gdb that I am with Borland's debugger. I have to
admit that I have only used the GNU debugger under Unix though. I assume
that it works the same under MSDOS.
Regarding 20-30 character variable names, simply use TAB completion. This
is MUCH quicker than clicking on the FILE menu and loading a particular .c
file, then searching for the word and clicking on it.
--John
Roger Gavin Smith
>Boxer 7.0 for DOS by David Hamel. It has syntax highlighting : and allows
>you to configure it for the compiler. It can be found on Compuserve,
>don't : know where to get it on the net though.
Boxer is available from from the SimTel repository at Oakland,
among other places.
SimTel/msdos/editor/
boxer700.zip 357062 8 950326 BOXER Editor v7.0 - powerful, full-featured
One way to get this file is from a *nix shell account using
the program ncftp. Type:
ncftp oak.oakland.edu:/SimTel/msdos/editor/boxer700.zip
The program "boxer700.zip" will be ftp'd from Oakland
and stored in your current directory.
-Roger
rgs...@whale.st.usm.edu
Chris McFarlane
da...@space.mit.edu (John E. Davis) wrote:
>Path:
midland.co.nz!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!uunet!in2.uu.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!sen
<FRI...@URIACC.URI.EDU> wrote:
> : As for the GNU debugger, a glitzier interface would be a plus. Right
now,
> : it takes a lot longer to debug a GNU program then a Borland-compiled
program,
> : because, although the GNU debugger compares in capabilities, it is very
> : difficult to learn (and I'm sick of typing 20 to 30 character variable
and
> : function names, where's my point and click interface? :) Again, I'd be
happy to
> : help out if I could, but somehow I don't think I'm quite skilled enough
at
> : protected mode progrsamming to be of much use... :)
Has someone mentioned in this thread, for those who favour the borland style
IDE UI, that fsdb is reasonably similar .
Chris