cannot build opencobol-1.1 under cygwin
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Spin-off
Next: In praise of compiler writers
From: Richard on 13 Apr 2010 14:28 On Apr 14, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Daniel wrote: > > Anyone tried that ? > > > confugure ran OK, but make abends > > > -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y2k -MT > > libcob_la-screenio.lo - > > MD -MP -MF ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" -c -o libcob_la-screenio.lo > > `test -f ' > > screenio.c' || echo './'`screenio.c; \ > > then mv -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" > > ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Plo" > > ; else rm -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo"; exit 1; fi > > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -march=i686 -mtune=pentium4 > > -finline- functions -fsigned-char -Wall -Wwrite-strings > > -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y 2k -MT libcob_la-screenio.lo -MD > > -MP -MF .deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo -c screeni > > o.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/libcob_la-screenio.o > > <snipped diagnostics> > > Is it me? > > When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, then I realised it wasn't. > > Are people still interacting with computers to do useful work in this way? > > Is it true that "REAL" programmers only use command line interfaces? > > This looks like a nightmare conceived by a very insecure techie, in the > interests of job security. > > Why would anyone inflict brain damage like this on themselves when they > don't HAVE to? > > I honestly can't see how a system that needs this kind of interface can > possibly be any use in this day and age. Your inability to see has no influence on its usefulness. > If it were me, the first thing I would do is write a GUI command interface > that hides all of this. > > Tick a few boxes, select a few options, click a button. GUIs are for those who have no clue as to what is going on. You probably missed that he mentioned 'configure' and 'make'. It is make that determines what is required to be done. There is no need for knowing which boxes to tick or which options to select, 'configure' works all that out for itself while 'make' takes all the actions that are necessary. I have all my compiles and other regular actions under 'make' so that I never need to tick boxes and select options. > This just looks like too much work and eyestrain. You obviously cannot tell the difference between a command line and a diagnostic.
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2010 23:19 Fred Mobach wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: > >> Daniel wrote: >>> Anyone tried that ? >>> >>> confugure ran OK, but make abends >>> >>> -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y2k -MT >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo - >>> MD -MP -MF ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" -c -o >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo `test -f ' >>> screenio.c' || echo './'`screenio.c; \ >>> then mv -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" >>> ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Plo" >>> ; else rm -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo"; exit 1; fi >>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -march=i686 >>> -mtune=pentium4 >>> -finline- functions -fsigned-char -Wall -Wwrite-strings >>> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y 2k -MT libcob_la-screenio.lo -MD >>> -MP -MF .deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo -c screeni >>> o.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/libcob_la-screenio.o >> <snipped diagnostics> >> >> Is it me? > > Yes. :-) Fair enough... :-) Just as well my days in this industry are coming to a close... :-) > >> Are people still interacting with computers to do useful work in this >> way? > > Yes. :-) > >> Is it true that "REAL" programmers only use command line interfaces? > > No. For example I use Firefox most of the time for browsing, KMail for > e-mail, KNode for usenet and GIMP for graphics. But most of the rest > is done in Bash. > >> This looks like a nightmare conceived by a very insecure techie, in >> the interests of job security. >> >> Why would anyone inflict brain damage like this on themselves when >> they don't HAVE to? > > The trio ./configure && make && make install is almost universal in > UNIX / Linux environments. But the fighting over automake etc. is > still going on. ;-) Thanls for your post Fred; it made me smile :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2010 23:32 Richard wrote: > On Apr 14, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Daniel wrote: >>> Anyone tried that ? >> >>> confugure ran OK, but make abends >> >>> -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y2k -MT >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo - >>> MD -MP -MF ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" -c -o >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo `test -f ' >>> screenio.c' || echo './'`screenio.c; \ >>> then mv -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" >>> ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Plo" >>> ; else rm -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo"; exit 1; fi >>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -march=i686 >>> -mtune=pentium4 >>> -finline- functions -fsigned-char -Wall -Wwrite-strings >>> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y 2k -MT libcob_la-screenio.lo -MD >>> -MP -MF .deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo -c screeni >>> o.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/libcob_la-screenio.o >> >> <snipped diagnostics> >> >> Is it me? >> >> When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, then I realised it >> wasn't. >> >> Are people still interacting with computers to do useful work in >> this way? >> >> Is it true that "REAL" programmers only use command line interfaces? >> >> This looks like a nightmare conceived by a very insecure techie, in >> the interests of job security. >> >> Why would anyone inflict brain damage like this on themselves when >> they don't HAVE to? >> >> I honestly can't see how a system that needs this kind of interface >> can possibly be any use in this day and age. > > Your inability to see has no influence on its usefulness. > Absolutely. It does have influence on it's usefulness to me, though... > >> If it were me, the first thing I would do is write a GUI command >> interface that hides all of this. >> >> Tick a few boxes, select a few options, click a button. > > GUIs are for those who have no clue as to what is going on. Or those who want to deal with REAL problems rather than computer interfaces. I guess in your book people who don't know how to use a brace and bit or a hammer cannot be good carpenters, and yet master tradesmen are building houses with power drills and nail guns. > > You probably missed that he mentioned 'configure' and 'make'. It is > make that determines what is required to be done. There is no need for > knowing which boxes to tick or which options to select, 'configure' > works all that out for itself while 'make' takes all the actions that > are necessary. I use 'make' in the windows environment all the time... through the Windows interface. I CAN use it from a command line and have done so on a few occasions when that made sense, but I PREFER not to. > > I have all my compiles and other regular actions under 'make' so that > I never need to tick boxes and select options. > >> This just looks like too much work and eyestrain. > > You obviously cannot tell the difference between a command line and a > diagnostic. Maybe not in 'Nix, but I don't claim expertise in that. Given that I worked with computers for many years before display screens became available, I'm not altogether unfamiliar with CLI, and I did work with DOS on PCs before Windows became available. My post was actually light-hearted, but as we are now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or GUI, I would choose GUI every time. BUT, it is a personal preference, and I wouldn't argue that people who disagree are wrong. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 14 Apr 2010 02:58 On Apr 14, 3:32 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > On Apr 14, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Daniel wrote: > >>> Anyone tried that ? > > >>> confugure ran OK, but make abends > > >>> -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y2k -MT > >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo - > >>> MD -MP -MF ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" -c -o > >>> libcob_la-screenio.lo `test -f ' > >>> screenio.c' || echo './'`screenio.c; \ > >>> then mv -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo" > >>> ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Plo" > >>> ; else rm -f ".deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo"; exit 1; fi > >>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -march=i686 > >>> -mtune=pentium4 > >>> -finline- functions -fsigned-char -Wall -Wwrite-strings > >>> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-format-y 2k -MT libcob_la-screenio.lo -MD > >>> -MP -MF .deps/libcob_la-screenio.Tpo -c screeni > >>> o.c -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/libcob_la-screenio.o > > >> <snipped diagnostics> > > >> Is it me? > > >> When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, then I realised it > >> wasn't. > > >> Are people still interacting with computers to do useful work in > >> this way? > > >> Is it true that "REAL" programmers only use command line interfaces? > > >> This looks like a nightmare conceived by a very insecure techie, in > >> the interests of job security. > > >> Why would anyone inflict brain damage like this on themselves when > >> they don't HAVE to? > > >> I honestly can't see how a system that needs this kind of interface > >> can possibly be any use in this day and age. > > > Your inability to see has no influence on its usefulness. > > Absolutely. It does have influence on it's usefulness to me, though... > > > > >> If it were me, the first thing I would do is write a GUI command > >> interface that hides all of this. > > >> Tick a few boxes, select a few options, click a button. > > > GUIs are for those who have no clue as to what is going on. > > Or those who want to deal with REAL problems rather than computer > interfaces. I guess in your book people who don't know how to use a brace > and bit or a hammer cannot be good carpenters, and yet master tradesmen are > building houses with power drills and nail guns. Well, you completely missed the point there. I mainly solve _real_ problems by building systems that have no need for a user interface at all. The point of computers is that they automate processes. Why have a GUI so that things can be selected and clicked when the program can determine what those settings should be and just get on and do it. If you have ever seen a house being built you will have noticed that they still use hammers and brace and bit as well as nail guns and power drills. > > You probably missed that he mentioned 'configure' and 'make'. It is > > make that determines what is required to be done. There is no need for > > knowing which boxes to tick or which options to select, 'configure' > > works all that out for itself while 'make' takes all the actions that > > are necessary. > > I use 'make' in the windows environment all the time... through the Windows > interface. I CAN use it from a command line and have done so on a few > occasions when that made sense, but I PREFER not to. As it happens I have a user interface where I can navigate around the files to the Makefile and press enter to run make to do all the compiles. The point is that I don't need to select options and click checkboxes to get what is needed done. > > I have all my compiles and other regular actions under 'make' so that > > I never need to tick boxes and select options. > > >> This just looks like too much work and eyestrain. > > > You obviously cannot tell the difference between a command line and a > > diagnostic. > > Maybe not in 'Nix, Actually the diagnostics _were_ in Windows. > but I don't claim expertise in that. Given that I worked > with computers for many years before display screens became available, I'm > not altogether unfamiliar with CLI, and I did work with DOS on PCs before > Windows became available. I seldom used MS-DOS, only when I couldn't avoid it. MS-DOS was deliberately crippled to give a poor impression of command line interfaces. DRI's Multuiuser-DOS and DR-DOS had a decent command line editor which made the CLI much easier than fiddling with an IDE. > My post was actually light-hearted, No it wasn't. You made insulting and derogatory remarks. > but as we are > now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or GUI, I > would choose GUI every time. Given a choice I would prefer no UI at all and the job just gets done. Regular jobs get scripted and cronned. > BUT, it is a personal preference, and I wouldn't argue that people who > disagree are wrong. No, but you will call them "very insecure techie" and 'brain damaged'.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Apr 2010 10:32
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >My post was actually light-hearted, but as we are >now being serious, I would say that, given a choice between CLI or GUI, I >would choose GUI every time. I'm glad that often both are available, and I don't need to choose one every time. Let me select the tool I want for a particular task. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |