CounterRotatingProps said...
We either need a MAKE - OR not.
I've used MAKE with Propellent. Except for the Propellent always looking for sources in it's PATH by default and the silly GUI progress box, it worked well (Propellent has a library switch). I use BSTC constantly for command-line projects now in make or as an external program to debuggers, etc... Propeller Tool is fine except for no library path and trying to open all drives (using 1.2.6).
OK - what I'm trying to say in this little stretch of the thread: with a *separate* preprocessor/make/m4 (whatever works) we could feed smart stuff into dumber tools - and not have to wait till who knows when (or if) those tools are made open to us.
(I can well imagine Parallax doesn't want to directly have to support the tweeking, breaking, and recoding of their IDE - that's something *we* would have to oversee... although I think Chip just recently mentioned somewhere here that the future IDE would be open (don't hold me to that quote tho!)).
Openness is a two-edged sword for vendors who provide it, especially if the base-level tools are lacking features that customers demand. On the one hand, many customers are happy to get access to the inner workings. On the other hand, the inevitable design forks that provide missing, but widely sought-after features can be a headache for the vendor's tech support. For this reason, I think it's important to provide the features that customers want on the front end. It keeps the customers who don't want to fiddle with it happy, and there's less chance of being expected to support something the vendor didn't originate. Plus, many corporate clients are simply afraid of third-party add-ons due to support issues.
Indeed - part of why we're even having this discussion is due to the short-comings of the PropTool ... (I don't need to defend that as we all love Parallax and know first hand of the incredible support.) But there's only so much any one can do. If the IDE remains closed, it's a realistic question of how much new functionality they can do and support - and will it be enough to keep us from wanting to "fiddle with it" ?
I'd be a happy camper if the four points outlined at the thread top were met - even in a minimal manner. Phil, in points 1&2, you nailed the essential weaknesses of the PropTool. (Help system too... I'm still working on a help 'workaround') But it's a propTool first, an IDE second. That second position needs to be bolstered.
Comments
Take this to the logical conclusion: We're all reinventing the wheels here.
Making several of Phil's original points black and white:
We either need a macro/preparser - OR not.
We either need a MAKE - OR not.
The details don't matter as the MAKE can determine whatever is needed. The only hitch I see is how and where Parallax alters the OBEX or not.
Leon's suggestion of M4 might actually be the fastest way to the end result as it can combine the Macro/preprocessor and MAKE into one.
MyMakeM4 -> M4 ->MySpinFiles ->a PropTool
So the organization (or not [noparse]:)[/noparse] is up to the end user.
What would be the problems with this?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
With the latest Propellent version, you can quash the GUI box.
-Phil
(I can well imagine Parallax doesn't want to directly have to support the tweeking, breaking, and recoding of their IDE - that's something *we* would have to oversee... although I think Chip just recently mentioned somewhere here that the future IDE would be open (don't hold me to that quote tho!)).
"Parts is Parts"
A tool chain's a tool chain...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
-Phil
I'd be a happy camper if the four points outlined at the thread top were met - even in a minimal manner. Phil, in points 1&2, you nailed the essential weaknesses of the PropTool. (Help system too... I'm still working on a help 'workaround') But it's a propTool first, an IDE second. That second position needs to be bolstered.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
-Phil
brilliant - anything to reduce Carpal Tunnel !
Do you think·with·might be·more common?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
-Phil