Who's Online |
168 user(s) are online ( 89 user(s) are browsing Forums)
Members: 0
Guests: 168
more...
|
|
Headlines |
-
mce.lha - game/utility
Apr 23, 2024
-
theme_list.lha - utility/misc
Apr 23, 2024
-
faac.lha - audio/convert
Apr 22, 2024
-
faad2.lha - audio/convert
Apr 22, 2024
-
seq.lha - audio/misc
Apr 22, 2024
-
libfaac.lha - development/library/audio
Apr 22, 2024
-
libfaad.lha - development/library/audio
Apr 22, 2024
-
image2pdf.lha - utility/text/convert
Apr 22, 2024
-
libharfbuzz.lha - development/library/graphics
Apr 20, 2024
-
libpng.lha - development/library/graphics
Apr 20, 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CodeBench alpha
|
Posted on: 2008/8/5 13:43
#1301
|
Just can't stay away 
|
@Rigo Quote:
Rigo wrote:
@nbache
Do you know if VS uses a separate compiler/preprocessor to create the finished executable, or is it all handled by VS itself?
Well, I'm not exactly sure how it all works internally, but from the user's standpoint, it's all handled within VS. When you install VS, you select which languages you want to install support for, and I believe the support "chunk" for each language is pretty extensive (like so much in that world), so it probably contains lots of stuff that performs some of the magic seen in the IDE. But there is also a command-line version of the compiler, at least for C# (which is the language I use). I would guess that much of the language-specific code resides in DLLs which can be used from both the command line compiler and the IDE. There's also such things as language-aware (user-definable) code formatting, but again, this could be a service in a language-specific DLL called generically from the IDE application. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CodeBench alpha
|
Posted on: 2008/8/5 1:46
#1302
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Rigo Quote:
Rigo wrote:
@nbache
ome of the things VS has in it's favour is that it is designed to be used for one purpose, CodeBench is designed to be as general as possible to accommodate any language. While certain language specific stuff can be implemented by the plugins, the complxity is limited by the fact that it is just a plugin, and cannot replace all IDE functionality.
Things like variable definition tracking etc are beyond the scope of this application, and are the job of the preprocessor. In order to implement what you mention would mean practically writing my own preprocessor. Sadly, that is not going to happen.
Right. Well, I guess you could say that VS also uses a plugin system of sorts; it has support for multiple languages (BASIC, C#, C++, J# and I believe more). And I would expect the plugin to be the place for language-aware stuff, whether you'd call it a preprocessor or a parser, anything that can go far enough to keep track of the syntax tree of a whole project, which is more or less what would be needed for such features. And I do understand that this is not just something you add with a swift movement of your left hand  . But maybe you can give a few thoughts to a way to add it later? A plan for how the interface would work for a language plugin to be able to deliver such services to the general IDE? Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CodeBench alpha
|
Posted on: 2008/8/4 17:49
#1303
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Rigo Yeah, this is a really promising project. Well done, man. Quote:
Rigo wrote:
[...]
The editor features things like automatic function discovery and tracking, so you can simply highlight a user function in the source and select "Go To Function" and it will take you to that functions code. All functions in the current file are also available in the "Quick Link" window, so you can simply click it to go there.
[...]
Does this also work for other definitions, e.g. can you click on a variable usage and be taken to the place where it is being defined? And can you let the IDE search for and list all usages of a given definition across multiple files in a project? These are some features I find adding vastly to my productivity in VS at work (you can say lots of things about MS, but I have to admit VS is in many ways a benchmark). Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB and XHTML
|
Posted on: 2008/6/22 20:06
#1304
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Hans Quote: Hans wrote:
@nbache
I just figured out why I'm getting the error, and you aren't. The doctype for my page is set to HTML 4.01 strict, not loose. Right, that must be it. If I force the validator to revalidate my page as strict XHTML, I also get that error (and a few others like it, e.g. for border and bgcolor). To remain compatible to current Amiga browsers, we have to stay with the transitional DTD, as the strict one requires the use of CSS (defined or inline styles) instead of most of those attributes. Quote: The problem is, even if I try to specify loose in the template, the CMS changes is back to strict. Don't you just hate tools that think they know better? Maybe you can get away with changing the doctype of the resulting html file after saving it from the tool. Quote: Seeing as it works, I'll just leave it as-is. That's of course always a way out . But at least we found out that it wasn't some previously unfound bug in the validator (which was why I wanted to investigate further). Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB and XHTML
|
Posted on: 2008/6/22 1:43
#1305
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Hans Quote: Hans wrote:
@nbache
Quote:nbache wrote:
@Hans
IMHO, standards like those from the W3C are not supposed to be descriptive, but normative. Given that, you're almost saying the equivalent to: Since all cars can kill people when hitting them, this might as well be part of the requirements to the car makers.
Okay, I admit, the example might not be the best one (but a car analogy is obligatory in debates like this one, you know  ). My point was that since the W3C spec is "the law" (it's a normative specification), anything some - or even many - browsers choose to support which is not prescribed therein is their own responsibility, and it is only fair if usage of such features is pointed out by the official tool for checking conformance to the specification. Demanding that such features are accepted by the validator is equivalent to demanding that they should be part of the standard, and that is only for the legislative body (in this case W3C) to decide. Quote: I see two possibilities; either it's in the spec, and the w3c validator is wrong, or, it's a "non-standard" extension that everyone supports. I see a third possibility: Your tool uses it incorrectly, which is pointed out by the validator, but not incorrectly enough for all those browsers out there to fail to "support" it. If I understand you correctly, we are talking about the align="justify" attribute to the <p> tag, right? Like this: <p align="justify"> Some text. </p> I have just tested adding it to one of my own pages, and it validates fine. (If you don't believe me, here's the page I used, try it yourself: http://nielsogjette.dk/tindex.html - just click the W3C icon on the page to invoke the validator on it). Can you show me the page where that was rejected? Maybe I can figure out what is wrong with it. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
System clock running ahead?
|
Posted on: 2008/6/20 23:46
#1306
|
Just can't stay away
|
Could somebody check the system clock on the server running the forum? It looks like it must be about ten minutes ahead of proper time, judging from the timestamps on some posts I made.
(This one will be/was posted at exactly 23:36 Central European Summer Time.)
Best regards,
Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB and XHTML
|
Posted on: 2008/6/20 23:35
#1307
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Hans Quote: Hans wrote:
@nbache
[...]
I have no idea as I know very little about web standards (not my area of expertise). All I can say is that every browser that I tried supports this attribute and renders the text the same way. Seeing as all browsers support it, it might as well be in the spec.
I've been away from the thread for some days, but this one just caught my eye and forced me to comment again. IMHO, standards like those from the W3C are not supposed to be descriptive, but normative. Given that, you're almost saying the equivalent to: Since all cars can kill people when hitting them, this might as well be part of the requirements to the car makers. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB and XHTML
|
Posted on: 2008/6/16 0:08
#1308
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Hans Quote:
Hans wrote:
[...]
I can't fix the markup. The site that I linked to isn't mine.
Pity. Couldn't you just make a copy of the page locally, fix the missing end tag in that and see how OWB reacts? Quote: Even with my site, fixing the errors that the validator lists is too much effort. My site contains various inserts (e.g., clustr-maps) that the w3 validator doesn't like. It also complains about markup generated by TinyMCE, the CMS page editor that I'm using. For example, it complains about the align="justify" attribute that TinyMCE uses to format paragraphs. Nevertheless, all browsers that I've tried correctly interpret this attribute. I'm starting to wonder how valid the w3 validator is.
In general, I would trust the W3C validator over *any* tool, with the possible exception of a plain text editor combined with the official specs. Are you sure that attribute you mention is actually corretly used according to the XHTML standard and the DTD the page refers to? Quote: Finally, XHTML is not supported properly by browsers. For example, Firefox 2 doesn't support Javascript's Document.write() method with XHTML pages. Google's services tend to use these, causing Firefox to render pages incorrectly. I've decided to stick to plain HTML.
Document.write() is not part of the XHTML standard, it's part of DOM (AFAIK). I think the real issue is that the HTML standards are much more loose/forgiving on many points than XHTML, so a lot of markup slack is not caught when using plain old HTML as the yardstick. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB and XHTML
|
Posted on: 2008/6/15 18:27
#1309
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Hans Quote:
Hans wrote:
@orgin
Quote:
So it has a tag missing the "/". Still, OWB shouldn't crash, even on sites with errors in the markup.
Hans
This is correct, of course. But more interesting: Did you now try fixing your markup problem and see whether OWB stops crashing? If so, we have at least established that XHTML pages are not problematic for OWB, only buggy XHTML pages -- which is of course still an OWB bug. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Installing OS4 on Classic - White Screen??????????
|
Posted on: 2008/6/15 0:48
#1310
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Mikey_C
Just a thought -- do you still have the original OS 3.x system on another HDD? If you re-install that instead of the new blank HDD, can you boot as before? And can you verify under 3.x that the PPC works okay? I.e. run a demo or game or whatever that you positively know uses the PPC.
If so, check that you have sufficient cooling on the PPC chip -- err, or check that in any case, actually. Remember that OS4 uses the PPC all the time, not just in short periods as under WarpOS.
Best regards,
Niels
P.S. I believe the clock on the Amigans.net server must be about ten minutes fast, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Jokes! and More Jokes! :-) (Adult Humour)
|
Posted on: 2008/6/5 11:45
#1311
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Mikey_C
Hmm, let's see ... I did already, didn't I? At least *I* got a "ROTFLMAO".
Best regards,
Niels
(P.S. No, really, you're doing just fine, Mikey, I just couldn't resist the obvious response there.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Jokes! and More Jokes! :-) (Adult Humour)
|
Posted on: 2008/6/4 20:29
#1312
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Mikey_C Quote:
Mikey_C wrote:
I haven't posted any good jokes in ages
[...]
And still you insist on trying?  Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB (1.24/1.3) bugs and feature requests
|
Posted on: 2008/5/25 20:50
#1313
|
Just can't stay away
|
@joerg Quote:
joerg wrote:
@nbache
Although it works with the Linux version of OWB it's not something in the AmigaOS4 parts which causes the crash, for example if I change the User-Agent in the OS4 OWB to the one used by the Linux version it doesn't crash but instead there is an endless loop somewhere, OWB doesn't react any more and even a warm reboot doesn't work. Seems to be one of the many memory trashing bugs of WebKit 
That's funny -- so you say just by changing the string used as User-Agent you avoid the DSI? Is the AmigaOS one maybe too long or otherwise malformed or something? As for the endless loop and non-reaction, that might be the same symptom as what I see after the GR when ignoring DSIs. So maybe there are two different issues in this? Just speculating here. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CyberVisionPPC
|
Posted on: 2008/5/25 16:05
#1314
|
Just can't stay away
|
@johnfante Quote:
johnfante wrote:
[...]
libs:gtlayout.library - 43.6
[...]
This is outdated. Get 47.1 from Aminet on the link Thomas posted earlier. Not sure if it helps on the real problem, though, but at least for CGXMode it should help. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OWB (1.24/1.3) bugs and feature requests
|
Posted on: 2008/5/25 13:31
#1315
|
Just can't stay away
|
Could someone please try this on a regular OS4 Final with July Update (just to rule out any influence from the OS4 beta I'm running here, and to achieve a crash log without references to beta material ): Go to intellicast.com, enter "liverpool,uk" in the Local Weather search box near the top. The page loads more or less fully, and then I get a DSI Grim Reaper. The stack trace is very long, mostly with references inside OWB intself, but the stack cookie is OK, and as far as I can see, there is still some stack space left; I have half a Meg set in the icon. If I hit the Ignore DSIs button, OWB doesn't react any more, and I have to reboot or suffer a very sluggish system - so I guess it enters some sort of tight and/or infinite loop. J?rg, if you want a crash log from my system, let me know, and I'll mail it directly. (Yep, going to visit Liverpool soon - any nice tips from locals? (mail me at niels on nbache in dk, or we can make a Free for all thread)) Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CyberVisionPPC
|
Posted on: 2008/5/20 22:44
#1316
|
Just can't stay away
|
@johnfante Quote:
johnfante wrote:
Btw.: Is an upgrade to CyberGraph 4 worth the money?
Hmm; it's been almost a decade since I really messed around with CGX, but I do seem to remember that upgrading to V4 suddenly made things "just work" after I had had lots of problems with V3. So I guess it's worth a try, especially if you can find a cheap copy like abalaban mentions. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CyberVisionPPC
|
Posted on: 2008/5/18 23:18
#1317
|
Just can't stay away
|
@johnfante Quote: By "the latest", do you mean CGX V4? Note that V4 is not free, the update on that site says it requires the V4 CD-ROM. (You didn't mention anything about having it.) Under OS4, the card is driven by the Picasso drivers, so no CGX is required there. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whoops! I did it again!
|
Posted on: 2008/5/15 17:48
#1318
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Mikey_C
Well, it's still not multiple enough. There's no option for the English Guru Book.
Best regards,
Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: starting OWB with a URL
|
Posted on: 2008/5/10 12:50
#1319
|
Just can't stay away
|
@Ned Quote:
Ned wrote:
I am trying to start OWB version 1.24 and supply a URL as the home page. I have tried things such as:
owb boot:myfile.html
owb file:///boot:myfile.html
and a few other variations without any luck. Can someone enlighten me with an example of how to start owb with a file as my home page.
Assuming you have a volume called "boot" with a file called "myfile.html" in its root directory, you were pretty close with your last example. Try this: OWB --url file:///boot/myfile.htmlI believe that should work. Quote: On a slightly different topic, I have yet to figure out how to reply to a message here. I can't seem to find a reply button.
Thanks.
Ned Hmm, it's in the bottom right corner of every post, as well as in the top and bottom of every (page of every) thread, next to the New topic button -- provided you're logged in, of course. Best regards, Niels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: You've been Doomy Rolled.
|
Posted on: 2008/5/8 23:05
#1320
|
Just can't stay away
|
You gotta give the man some credit for conviction, though. And actually, he can even sing, sort of.
It's just a pity he didn't use his beloved Amiga (and all the other gear he's got there in the background) to give himself some music to sing along to, that would probably have made him feel secure enough to put more power into the song. It might have sounded quite good then.
Best regards,
Niels
|
|
|
|
|
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
