LccWin32 question

[Waxhead]

heh I don't think you have started a flame war This was never my intention either so sorry back if my reply seems a bit harsh I'm just trying to point out that as long as anyone tries to earn money on the basis of other peoples work it's nothing wrong with the fact that those pepole who supplyed the base for your work is entitled to a little something

I agree that the IDE needs some work. Much work have been done lately in cleaning up and reorganizing the IDE but there's still some stuff that can be improved. The IDE is stable but it suffers from hard to reproduce "bugs" that can't easily be reported - the good thing is that the IDE is beeing worked on

I use PellesC personally, I just want something for coding small tools
and such minor stuff, I don't want to sell anything.

I use LccWin32 for the exact same reasons

That beeing said I've been testing PellesC for a little while now and regarding the IDE it looks real nice. I personaly like the abillity to select a color for almost everything and the support for diffrent C formatting styles. [/quote]

[severach]

>USB/Firewire when we have Ethernet(??)

Whomever trades ping for bandwidth loses both! (It's much closer to Patrick Henry than may first appear.)

>isn't it a bit unfair that you are gonna make money on something other people have done for free?

Worst case senario:

Isn't it a bit unfair for a compiler author to hold sway over me and my code and much code that touches mine for all perpetuity and it rests on me to proove license compliance at a moments notice? A far away company might need to send reprentatives to my place to ensure that my code they want to use was made in a legal compiler? Licence verification may look unimportant but could be brought to the front burner from any number of unknown factors and threats via compilers could be the most destructive. How many misplaced licenses would it take to make illegal 50% of all the code ever written? If we could find just one pirated compiler at Microsoft we might be able to make Windows illegal.

I have a rigid rule that published code or products must be compatible and should be built primarily with FOSS tools. Commercial compilers are a legally unsafe foundation.

>it's unfair to ask for a little something ONCE

Yes, it's unfair to the author of LCC. Continuous work should earn continuous money. One low price makes the author a church mouse just like the rest of us. Why not just lower the price a few more bucks and save everyone the legal anguish? Compilers may be a lot of work but with gcc, the cash cow is gone forever. People pay for new and different and there's not much new & different in compilers anymore. Now that so many compilers have gone free or open source, maybe this constant wheel reinventing that results from closed source will stop.

>asking Pelle for the source of PellesC for free and then sell PellesC (renamed) as a own product and earn money on it

That's a typical rule of open source. The trouble is that if I bought the source and sold a similar compiled work under my own name, noone would buy it unless it did something extra worth the money. Pelles selling the source is very clever. He earns money, probably not enough, without endangering the bulk of his users. I don't have his source code so I'm pretty certain I won't get busted.

>I use LccWin32 for the exact same reasons

But paying attention to legal matters, your code suffers from a latent legal threat that code from a Pelles-C user does not. Saying that you're learning and not earning is as dubious as saying that women don't get married for commercial reasons. Just because today's attitudes make licensing seem unimportant doesn't make them unimportant forever. I keep LccWin32 around too for me to look at but published code and LccWin32 never meet.

>a little something

The little something causes a big problem. If I steal a Corvette, earn money on it, and it's reclaimed 30 years later, will 'they' come and take the money with interest? I think 'they' mainly want their Vette back and standard compensation. If I make a program with a compiler that I can't prove compliance, will 'they' make all my code illegal? Probably not. The difference: one has withstood the test of time. Never in the history of the world has so much indistinct intangible goods been governed by laws minimally exceptional for distinct intangible goods. Using a compiler that doesn't endanger me gives me the empty satisfaction that I'm safe.

Try as I might, I can't find a reference to the forever damning problems of commercial software: "Commercial software gives them the right to sue you but expressly disclaims your right to sue them. The payor takes all the risk in a non reciprocal agreement who's statute of limitations has yet to be determined and may not be retroactive. The presence of commercial software endangers any person or organization that uses or has ever used it. FOSS at least minimizes their right to sue you."

http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/

I'm pretty sure I don't need to proove how I got Borland C++ 5.51 Free. Free software goes a long way to solving the legal danger. Open Source goes the rest of the way.

I predict a time when it will be well enforced and illegal to produce closed source software for public use.

>to raise the interest [in LCC]

If you want sheer numbers, just add C++ and you'll automatically get a percentage of those who can't think beyond BASIC.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Dec/ran20031212022926.htm

[Waxhead]

:shock:

[bushpilot]

I predict a time when it will be well enforced and illegal to produce closed source software for public use.

And I was always told that "Open Source" stood for freedom ....

Greg

[ivanhv]

I used to compile my programs with lcc-win32 (prior to develop mainly with C++) and that're my points:

- Syntax extensions to C are great (i liked operator overloading very much), but in fact, I didn't employ any of them once.

- IDE was great, but missed most of the real things when I were working with it (no code folding, "intellisense" didn't work, code analysis was weird...)

- Documentation provided was great (and a recent download showed me that now is really AMAZING). I think the C-tutorial is really good made.

But the most important thing, and the one that turned to me into GCC was:

- A new release was launched too often (sometimes more than once a week), that corrected one bug on generated code and introduced two new ones.

- I didn't like having to work with a pseudo-free license (although I didn't care in practice, I ever felt morally disappointed with it)

And now, what Pelles C has got, that has attracted me from GNU C:

- ARM code generation, running with Pocket PC (I were using embedded Visual C). Embedded Visual C++ doesn't work with any of the libraries that makes it useful (WTL, Boost, SmatWin...), so I fall in C. In such case (having to program with C and not C++), I prefer doing it with a real free compiler (like Pelles C).

- A resource editor that works, and works well.

- A compiler that's next to ANSI C99 standard.

- IDE is useful. If not useful enough, you can extend it with plugins (lcc-win32 IDE's not bad, but you must accept it as it is).

And finally:

- Pelles C has a great, well structured forum, where almost anyone can have he/she's doubts solved (including those who ask for another compiler doubts  :wink: )