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 » Coffee corner » Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"?
Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #16890 is a reply to message #16889] Sat, 19 July 2008 19:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
Well, note that the thread is 3 years old Wink

(OTOH, lack of docs is still a problem. We have to focus hard on that now...)

Mirek
Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #16892 is a reply to message #7377] Sat, 19 July 2008 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
TeCNoYoTTa is currently offline  TeCNoYoTTa
Messages: 138
Registered: July 2008
Location: Egypt
Experienced Member

OMG

i really dont understand where is the Ultimate++ fans ??

i think it's a good idea to make a video that demonstrate how easy is it to make C++ applications with Ultimate++ and Upload it on Youtube

and i am a student in Computer And Information science collage in AinShams University in Egypt and i think i can tell my friends and colleagues about it and i already told some teachers and friends in my collage about it

And i really want to thank every body contributed in this Great library
Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #19396 is a reply to message #307] Sun, 30 November 2008 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Didier is currently offline  Didier
Messages: 680
Registered: November 2008
Location: France
Contributor
Hello,

This is my first post on this forum.

I'm not used to doing GUIs since I mostly do firmware on specialized hardware but I find U++ amazing in it's concepts and ease of use.

The main drawback I see to U++ is its code editor and the apparent complexity to build a U++ graphical application without using the editor ( sorry, I haven't looked very much ).

I'm perfectly aware of the time and energy spent creating the code editor (and it's debuger) but it's far from being perfect and why create what already exists free and much more complete (I'm thinking about Eclipse CDT for example).
If Writing and debuging the code editor wasn't necessary, much more things could be done for the part that really matters, I 'meen:
- The U++ core library and concepts : FANTASTIC
- The Graphical editor and the class inheritance mechanism
- Additional evolutions / libraries.

My bet is that with few modification U++ could spread out very easily:
1 - Have an eclipse plugin that manages the graphical part.
(CDT is starting to be a very popular C/C++ code editor)

2 - Change the build process to something more classical (blitz++ is perfect as far as i'm concerned but when you try to convince you're boss or a work colleague the usual reaction is Uhhh? a specific compilation process ?!? Can we trust it? is it bug free ? Is there support for it ? An d finally they say : "Forget it". and I understand that position).
'Boost.build' could be a good candidate :it's free, multi-plateform, multi-tread, simple to use, has complete documentation.

But again The work accomplished is fantastic : great job !


Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #19397 is a reply to message #19396] Sun, 30 November 2008 23:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
Didier wrote on Sun, 30 November 2008 17:09


The main drawback I see to U++ is its code editor and the apparent complexity to build a U++ graphical application without using the editor ( sorry, I haven't looked very much ).



I understand the sentiment. However, theide was created for purpose.

The main focus was managing modular dependencies and do it across platforms. There is nothing comparable available AFAIK.

Quote:


I'm perfectly aware of the time and energy spent creating the code editor (and it's debuger) but it's far from being perfect and why create what already exists free and much more complete (I'm thinking about Eclipse CDT for example).
If Writing and debuging the code editor wasn't necessary, much more things could be done for the part that really matters, I 'meen:
- The U++ core library and concepts : FANTASTIC
- The Graphical editor and the class inheritance mechanism
- Additional evolutions / libraries.



BTW, there was quite limited development of theide in 2007 and 2008. Maybe that is the reason why it lagged. It is the focus now, if you have not checked the latest svn version (note that current svn is on google-code), maybe do so first.

I see no tool able to solve problems theide was designed to solve.

Quote:


My bet is that with few modification U++ could spread out very easily:
1 - Have an eclipse plugin that manages the graphical part.
(CDT is starting to be a very popular C/C++ code editor)

2 - Change the build process to something more classical



You can switch BLITZ off with single click Smile It is off for release builds by default anyway - nothing special about build process then.

You can also export the whole project with makefile and build that way. Frankly, I was forced to add this feature for the exact reason:

Quote:


(blitz++ is perfect as far as i'm concerned but when you try to convince you're boss or a work colleague the usual reaction is Uhhh? a specific compilation process ?!? Can we trust it? is it bug free ? Is there support for it ? An d finally they say : "Forget it". and I understand that position).



If they see the code buildable with makefile in svn repo, they do not care what tool I have used to edit it. Frankly, they do not even care that the project was created with U++ - it is just regular C++ code with no strings attached.

All that said - I will repeat myself, but I strongly support the idea of "library version". This was discussed here a couple of times. I am only not going to do it myself - for me, there is no benefit (except more popularity, of course). I am offering all the support for the project - but in the same time I have to say that currently I do not see how to solve some issues, especially how to regroup current highly modular structure of U++ packages into something more orthodox.

Mirek

P.S.: Maybe, after (eventually) checking the latest svn version, you can write a list of issues you dislike about theide. Even if you are not going to like the idea of its further development, I would like to see it.


Mirek
Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #19461 is a reply to message #19397] Thu, 04 December 2008 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Didier is currently offline  Didier
Messages: 680
Registered: November 2008
Location: France
Contributor
OK thanks,

I compiled and launched successfully the latest svn version on FC8.
I had to modify the build scripts in order to get it running and find out what files where needed for it to run correctly.

The main problems I found with the editor was :
- code completion only worked in main.cpp file of my app ???
I never found out why ? ( this was on 2007 version )
- when i passed to 2008.1 the same app doesn't compile any more
I get some obscure syntax error and TheIde freezes !

Maybe I'll try to pass to boost.build style, after viewing some
generated makefiles it seems that the dependency problems and includes may just get resolved naturally.

Didier
Re: Which is the biggest drawback of U++ "unpopuliarity"? [message #19464 is a reply to message #19461] Thu, 04 December 2008 23:27 Go to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
Didier wrote on Thu, 04 December 2008 14:48

OK thanks,

I compiled and launched successfully the latest svn version on FC8.
I had to modify the build scripts in order to get it running and find out what files where needed for it to run correctly.

The main problems I found with the editor was :
- code completion only worked in main.cpp file of my app ???
I never found out why ? ( this was on 2007 version )
- when i passed to 2008.1 the same app doesn't compile any more
I get some obscure syntax error and TheIde freezes !

Maybe I'll try to pass to boost.build style, after viewing some
generated makefiles it seems that the dependency problems and includes may just get resolved naturally.

Didier


I have to say I am little bit confused about what was wrong with what version:)

Anyway, code completion, while still not perfect, should be greatly improved in latest svn.

Mirek
Previous Topic: Fantastic work!!
Next Topic: Which Upp version do you use?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 22:09:32 CET 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01268 seconds