Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » PR, media coverage, articles and documentation » U++ needs an IRC Channel
U++ needs an IRC Channel [message #38429] Sat, 15 December 2012 15:10 Go to next message
lectus is currently offline  lectus
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2006
Location: Brazil
Senior Member
Most programming languages and frameworks are on irc.freenode.net.

I suggest that the authors of U++ register a #Upp channel there.

It's a good option to chat about U++ when creating a full thread at the forum is too much.
Re: U++ needs an IRC Channel [message #38430 is a reply to message #38429] Sat, 15 December 2012 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dolik.rce is currently offline  dolik.rce
Messages: 1789
Registered: August 2008
Location: Czech Republic
Ultimate Contributor

lectus wrote on Sat, 15 December 2012 15:10

Most programming languages and frameworks are on irc.freenode.net.

I suggest that the authors of U++ register a #Upp channel there.

It's a good option to chat about U++ when creating a full thread at the forum is too much.

Hi lectus,

Are you aware of the #upp chanell on slashnet.org? (Webclient is available here)

Best regards,
Honza
Re: U++ needs an IRC Channel [message #38431 is a reply to message #38430] Sat, 15 December 2012 15:45 Go to previous message
lectus is currently offline  lectus
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2006
Location: Brazil
Senior Member
Didn't know about it.

But still I hold my recommendation, because freenode is more popular among programmers.

It would raise U++ popularity by simply listing channels at a popular IRC network.
Previous Topic: Article on U++ approach to resource management [Russian]
Next Topic: Russian article about U++
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 19 18:37:57 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02182 seconds