U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Re: U++ 2017 beta [message #47316 is a reply to message #47315]

Wed, 04 January 2017 08:47

MrSarup
Messages: 30
Registered: December 2016

Member

Hello cbpporter,
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 04 January 2017 08:08

Oh, and if you think I'm wrong, I dare you to prove it. Spend month trying to find a good method for Linux for my own needs and there is none.

But if you think there is, please show me the link to the standardized no-hassle tool that allows you to package a piece of software once and it will produce one or multiple binary packages capable of working out of the box (and install dependencies) on all of Linux.

Sure, here is the link:
http://http://www.wxwidgets.org/

On the main page it declares the following:

"wxWidgets is a C++ library that lets developers create applications for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and other platforms with a single code base."

The end product counts! The end result counts!!!

Using wxWidgets with CodeBlocks, I have an instant integration of all c++ features.

I see no reason why I should work on research of what and how U++ distribution needs to be done. There are reasons why U++ did not become popular. Difficulties to install and compile, apart of other things, is one of the many.

As a new comer, I see no reason why I should convince you, or any one else in this community, of what is good and what is bad. I came here to use this excellent source code.

The fact remains unchanged: I could not easily work with it. I am more than sure that I will have hundreds of difficulties later on.

Working now with wxWidgets, I have a support of a normal c++ community everywhere.

Consequently, the problem starts with U++ on every other level. This is a bottleneck, which is embedded within the system of U++, where many things are required by its special quality that needs to be made easy.

And that's not the case. But that's my problem. I need to choose the right open source coding that provides me a good start. After spending many hours, the only thing I could do is compile the theIDE!

What could be more ridiculous that this? My choice was wrong...

I strongly think that we all are wasting our time in making such discussions. If you think everything is right here, then please remain happy and work with it. I think this did not apply to me. The associated factors are just so gigantic that it becomes not worth working further. These factors comes along with, along with the U++ source code, that are not separable.

I should go, even though I loved the approach of U++, a very intelligent one, and find something else to work with.

Report message to a moderator