AVR compilers

<ian_okey@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1105608904.520444.300300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> and after sending to support wait for a week before getting an answer.

Who?  I've been getting nearly instant responses from ImageCraft and I'm not 
even a paying customer (yet).  (Next time my lab needs a lot of AVR 
development setups, I know whose compiler I'm going to favor...)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:46:50 -0800, "Richard M."
<richard@imagecraft.com> wrote:

[Snipped]
>
>To get back on topic: that space in filename support was a PITA. Took 
>forever to find all the places.

[Snipped]

Under DOS and Windows there are many programs which cannot handle a
short 8.3 directory name that actually uses the extention field in the
directory name. I have'nt checked if Imagecraft does this.
Directory names such as 
project.001
So if one has a path of c:\project.0\source\ver.0\main.c a hell of a
lot of software under DOS and Windows freaks out even though this
was allowed from the beginning.

Regards
   Anton Erasmus

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:17:43 +0100, David
<david.nospam@westcontrol.removethis.com> wrote:
[we're getting 'way off topic but this IS usenet...   ;-) ]
>machines).  Why someone thought that a directory such as 
>"d:\Documents and Settings\David.DAVID1700\My Documents" is a good idea,
>compared to just "d:\home\david" or even "d:\david" is beyond me.

Among all the reasons that Bill Gates should face a firing squad, the
"feature" of replacing the more-or-less industry standard forward slash
to separate path components with the more-or-less industry standard
escape character should be right up towards the top of the list.

-- 
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message 
news:ecvdu05oldk3hd402fbtco6gkkfjde5jl4@4ax.com...

> Among all the reasons that Bill Gates should face a firing squad, the
> "feature" of replacing the more-or-less industry standard forward slash
> to separate path components with the more-or-less industry standard
> escape character should be right up towards the top of the list.

That predates him, or rather, it's a consequence of something that predates 
him.  When MS-DOS was acquired from Seattle Computer, / was already used to 
introduce optional arguments.  Bill was stuck with that, and couldn't change 
it because application software was also doing it.  So the directory 
separator had to be \.

Do all operating systems have to be JUST LIKE UNIX?  Is UNIX the only good 
operating system the world ever saw?

> >>> P.S. How about installing in C:\Program Files?  Or do you have
components
> >>> that don't like long filenames?  In general, I'm pretty picky about
> >>> wanting
> >>> all my application software to follow Windows conventions.  So far,
I'm
> >>
> >> Just because "Program Files" is a convention, doesn't mean it is a good
> >> idea.  In fact, it is an apallingly bad idea, and the microsoftie who
> >> thought of it should be strung up beside the even bigger halfwit who
> >> thought up the "my documents" scheme.
> >
> > I think naming it "Program Files" was a mistake.  It should have been
> > "progs"

What about "/usr/local/bin"  ;-)

> > for complete compatibility with software that doesn't recognize long
> > filenames, and for quicker typing.  Likewise "Documents and Settings"
should
> > have been "usr".  Apart from that, I think it was a good idea.
> >
> > "My documents" was a good idea too.
>
Learn Swedish and install Swedish Windows :-)
Then it is called "C:\Program" instead of "C:\Program Files"



-- 
Best Regards
Ulf at atmel dot com
These comments are intended to be my own opinion and they
may, or may not be shared by my employer, Atmel Sweden.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:06:46 +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

>> >>> P.S. How about installing in C:\Program Files?  Or do you have
> components
>> >>> that don't like long filenames?  In general, I'm pretty picky about
>> >>> wanting
>> >>> all my application software to follow Windows conventions.  So far,
> I'm
>> >>
>> >> Just because "Program Files" is a convention, doesn't mean it is a good
>> >> idea.  In fact, it is an apallingly bad idea, and the microsoftie who
>> >> thought of it should be strung up beside the even bigger halfwit who
>> >> thought up the "my documents" scheme.
>> >
>> > I think naming it "Program Files" was a mistake.  It should have been
>> > "progs"
> 
> What about "/usr/local/bin"  ;-)

Much better - anything without spaces or other awkward characters.  Of
course, in a *nix system this would be on your path, so you wouldn't have
to type it - and if you did, bash completion makes it much faster to type.

> 
>> > for complete compatibility with software that doesn't recognize long
>> > filenames, and for quicker typing.  Likewise "Documents and Settings"
> should
>> > have been "usr".  Apart from that, I think it was a good idea.
>> >
>> > "My documents" was a good idea too.
>>
> Learn Swedish and install Swedish Windows :-)
> Then it is called "C:\Program" instead of "C:\Program Files"

I live in Norway, so Swedish sounds to me like badly pronounced Norwegian :-)
In the Norwegian version of windows, it's called "c:\programfiler", which
is better than "Program Files", but not enough to make me switch!

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:10:21 -0500, mc wrote:

> 
> "Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message 
> news:ecvdu05oldk3hd402fbtco6gkkfjde5jl4@4ax.com...
> 
>> Among all the reasons that Bill Gates should face a firing squad, the
>> "feature" of replacing the more-or-less industry standard forward slash
>> to separate path components with the more-or-less industry standard
>> escape character should be right up towards the top of the list.
> 
> That predates him, or rather, it's a consequence of something that predates 
> him.  When MS-DOS was acquired from Seattle Computer, / was already used to 
> introduce optional arguments.  Bill was stuck with that, and couldn't change 
> it because application software was also doing it.  So the directory 
> separator had to be \.
> 

Yes, IIRC the use of / for arguments came from CP/M, which predates QDOS
(the anscestor of MSDOS).  One less bullet hole for Bill, although there
are plenty left.  However, he could have picked something else for the
directory seperator, since \ was a standard escape character (especially
for C) at the time.

> Do all operating systems have to be JUST LIKE UNIX?  Is UNIX the only good 
> operating system the world ever saw?

Can you think of a better one, for general purpose use?  There have been
plenty of good OS'es which have come and gone, but *nix in all its forms
has survived.  About the only serious competition for a solid, stable,
well-designed popular general-purpose OS was VMS, which has some
definite advantages over *nix, but which is being killed off by HP (for
reasons beyond the understanding of most people other than the
conspiricy-theorists).

Anyway, things like the use of / are better described as being part of
posix, which is a much wider standard.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:15 -0500, mc wrote:

> 
> "David" <david.nospam@westcontrol.removethis.com> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.01.13.09.17.42.795000@westcontrol.removethis.com...
> 
>> Despite claims, desktop windows is still
>> basically a single-user system.
> 
> Not in my lab.  We have roaming user profiles.  Any user can sit down at any 
> PC and get his own desktop and his own files.  This quickly reveals to us 
> which pieces of software don't follow Windows standards!
> 

You are unusual - very few use a full roaming profile setup (as distinct
from just file-server based home directories) successfully. The reason is
simple - lots of software doesn't work properly with it, because it is not
a natural way for windows to work.  Many offices which need the effect of
roaming profiles prefer to use a windows terminal server setup instead,
although obviously that doesn't work for everything either.

>> Why someone thought that a directory such as
>> "d:\Documents and Settings\David.DAVID1700\My Documents" is a good idea,
>> compared to just "d:\home\david" or even "d:\david" is beyond me.
> 
> It becomes David.1700 only if you've logged in 1700 times and each time the 
> machine crashed and didn't delete the previous one.

Actually, the machine name is DAVID1700, so this indicates a
locally-authenticated user.

> 
> But in any case you can easily identify this directory through an 
> environment variable.

You can, to some extent - but it can cause other problems.  I've got too
much software that I have to run to be able to mess too much with default
settings (even having windows installed on drive d: causes trouble
sometimes).  I've also had windows (w2k) crash and corrupt a fair amount
of my "documents and settings" area, so I prefer to leave it for programs
that insist on using it, and store my files elsewhere.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:10:21 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

>Do all operating systems have to be JUST LIKE UNIX?  Is UNIX the only good 
>operating system the world ever saw?

No, but for any system that uses C (or a relative) it's a PITA.

printf("Enter backup path, formatted as \\\\machine\\dir\\subdir\\...");

etc. Not to mention that the damned '\' key is in a different location
on EVERY DAMNED KEYBOARD!  <sigh>

-- 
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

On 2005-01-14, David <david.nospam@westcontrol.removethis.com> wrote:

>>> Among all the reasons that Bill Gates should face a firing
>>> squad, the "feature" of replacing the more-or-less industry
>>> standard forward slash to separate path components with the
>>> more-or-less industry standard escape character should be
>>> right up towards the top of the list.
>> 
>> That predates him, or rather, it's a consequence of something
>> that predates him.  When MS-DOS was acquired from Seattle
>> Computer, / was already used to introduce optional arguments.
>> Bill was stuck with that, and couldn't change it because
>> application software was also doing it.  So the directory 
>> separator had to be \.

Bah. MS-DOS system calls had always accepted "/" as the
directory path separator, and windows ones still do, dont'
they?.   I know the C library calls certainly accept "/".

For many, many years there was a switch in MS-DOS you could
throw that changed the option character to "-".

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  It's OKAY --- I'm an
                                  at               INTELLECTUAL, too.
                               visi.com