🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9210061955.AA07659@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com> tootill@sde.mdso.vf.ge.COM (Tootill Ed) writes:
>I need expanded installation instructions for g++ compiler.

You mean, for g++-1.4x, for some x.  I would recommend against the use
of this compiler.  Some of RMS's comments seem to imply the reverse
(e.g. the 1.x version is more stable), but he's talking about the C
part.  None of the extensive effort Cygnus and others have made towards
fixing g++ has been applied to the 1.x compiler; meanwhile, entropy
has probably made it worse.  I'd suggest using 1.40.3 in preference
to later versions, og g++-1.x, since I know I made 1.40.3 work for me.

It is true that gcc-1.42 is the "maintained for stability" version.  But
it does not follow by any means that g++-1.41.x or g++-1.42.x should be
used.  Its intallation procedure is very complex, and it is also
considerably buggier than g++-2.2.2.  Don't even try virtual base classes,
for example.  Also, no templates.

g++-2.2.2 is included in gcc-2.2.2.  Simply install gcc-2.2.2 and you'll
get the C++ part as well.

>Rhetorical comment: Why is "free" synonymous with "who needs
>documentation, let them figure it out the hard way".

Because people haven't been as good about producing and giving away
documentation as they've been about giving away code.  Don't like it?
Write some!  Often a knowledgeable user is a better candidate than the
original author to write good documentation, because the programmer
"knows too much" and isn't always conscious of what the user *doesn't*
know.

But I think you'll find the installation instructions included with
gcc-2.2.2 much easier to follow.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

tootill@sde.mdso.vf.ge.COM (Tootill Ed) writes:

> I need expanded installation instructions for g++ compiler.  The README
> file directs me to read the comments at the top of the Makefile for
> flags to use during install, but the Makefile does not contain comments
> about flags.  The README directs me to make several links.  Is this
> necessary or just the programmers style.  Also, do I need to load g++
> at the same directory level as gcc?  
> Rhetorical comment: Why is "free" synonymous with "who needs
> documentation, let them figure it out the hard way".

    Most freely available software has excellent documentation.  You're
    hard pushed in justifying your bitchin'.

    You must have a duff distribution, I had no problems. Are you using the
    gcc2.2.2 release, which also builds g++? I think I just had to type 

	  % ./configure sun4
	  % build_install # or make, some nice script anyway.
> 
>Ed Tootill - tootill@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com

-dave

-- 
djd@csg.cs.rdg.ac.uk
djd@csug.cs.rdg.ac.uk
davidd@integ.uucp

In article <djd.718455004@reading>, djd@csg.cs.reading.ac.uk (David J Dawkins) writes:
> tootill@sde.mdso.vf.ge.COM (Tootill Ed) writes:
> 
> >			[On FSF code]
> >
> > Rhetorical comment: Why is "free" synonymous with "who needs
> > documentation, let them figure it out the hard way".
 
>     Most freely available software has excellent documentation.  You're
>     hard pushed in justifying your bitchin'.
>     You must have a duff distribution, I had no problems. Are you using the
>     gcc2.2.2 release, which also builds g++? I think I just had to type 
> 	  % ./configure sun4
> 	  % build_install # or make, some nice script anyway.

That isn't documentation, that's a well-debugged interface to the
environment.  Trouble is, the environment is always changing and
there is no such thing as a permanently debugged interface.

Anyhow, my flame concerns the quality of FSF-distributed code.  It's often
brilliant in its execution (pardon the pun) but the craftsmanship of the
coding is nearly the worst that I've seen.  Craftsmanship counts, folks.  C++
class headers should have descriptions of what the frotzenglarkin' thing MEANS.
(The `indent' and `brace' styles don't help, IMO--but that's MO.)

Compare the FSF code with the source code that Sun has made available;
there's a large difference.

Use FSF-provided code by all means, and be grateful for it, too--but expect
to have to pull your hair out whenever something, however small, needs to be
changed.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ