Index
> Linux > fasmL and fasmXGoto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 06 Jul 2010, 21:29
|
|||
06 Jul 2010, 21:29 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 06 Jul 2010, 22:10
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=90739#90739 
But seriously, I think it should be built on top of GTK*, xLib seems to be GDI32.dll plus a very (VERY) limited subset of USER32.dll. Using xLib would result in not following the desktop settings and having custom dialogs and menus that won't match visually to those of the system. Also, the supposed efficiency of communicating "directly" to the server is not always that real, as the server as such may not exist (DirectFB system for instance), and even if exists the IPC used may be suboptimal (Unix sockets is just one of the ways the server exposes itself). *I know there are other graphical libraries but this one seems to be the most widely available among many Unix-like OSes and it is part of the Linux Standard Base. |
|||
|
06 Jul 2010, 22:10 |
|
|
edfed 07 Jul 2010, 09:43
cool, it means it will be made one day.. cool.
for the lib, GTK or X, it doesn't matter in my opinion, but my opinion on linux is maybe a little crappy. |
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 09:43 |
|
|
ManOfSteel 07 Jul 2010, 10:16
edfed, trust me it matters. Very much. Many people can be p***ed off when they have to install another widget toolkit for one application only. While I usually like GTK+, KDE (another DE with significant "market share") users and some others may prefer Qt. And you can go on just like that with every single TK available.
How about a text-mode IDE based on *curses and nothing else? Something that would look like *vi/vim but be more integrated with fasm. |
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 10:16 |
|
|
edfed 07 Jul 2010, 11:14
a console mode ide then.
yeah, it can be very cool. but it should have the same panel than FasmD. ctrl+F9 = compile, etc... |
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 11:14 |
|
|
Tyler 07 Jul 2010, 21:48
Curses could be used for the DOS-like port. Although, I would prefer a GUI port first.
|
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 21:48 |
|
|
ManOfSteel 07 Jul 2010, 22:12
Tyler wrote: I would prefer a GUI port first. Based on which TK? |
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 22:12 |
|
|
Tyler 07 Jul 2010, 22:35
I don't care, which ever is easiest I guess. Every other app installs a billion libs with it, I don't see why Fasm should be held to a higher standard.
I already have Qt installed, how hard is it to interface asm with C++(I've never tried)? If it isn't completely impossible, it would be easier(I assume) to have one GUI Fasm instead of two. |
|||
|
07 Jul 2010, 22:35 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 08 Jul 2010, 01:58
Quote:
|
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 01:58 |
|
|
revolution 08 Jul 2010, 02:54
But each HLL compiler mangles names differently. Even different versions of the same compiler change the format sometimes. Name mangling is a mess. Once you have it working for one version of one compiler you find a week later that it is broken again when a compiler upgrade come out.
|
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 02:54 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 08 Jul 2010, 04:06
Right, but I think it must be settled down somehow for Linux, otherwise how binaries linked to shared libs work?
The post I've been talking about: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=63391#63391 |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 04:06 |
|
|
ManOfSteel 08 Jul 2010, 08:50
Tyler wrote: I don't care, which ever is easiest I guess. As LocoDelAssembly said and showed, everything can be done in assembly, even using Qt. But that's not the point and you can't just say "I don't care". TBH, I don't really care because I don't use IDEs to begin with, but other people may care very much. That's why I proposed we do without X-based TKs. Tyler wrote: I already have Qt installed What if Tk was chosen in the end, or even "better" (in terms of big size) GTK+. How would you feel about that? Will you say "ok, I'll just install another 900-files 40MB TK, no problem"? Many choose applications depending on the TK they're based on. They may hate the guts of Qt and won't tolerate the "bloat" of Qt 4 libraries on their machines. Tyler wrote: Every other app installs a billion libs with it, I don't see why Fasm should be held to a higher standard. Maybe because it's just an assembler, not an entire desktop environment? |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 08:50 |
|
|
Tyler 08 Jul 2010, 09:11
ManOfSteel wrote:
possible != easy, I'm just saying that I don't care either way, and which ever would be the easiest to program in asm, IMO, should be used. ManOfSteel wrote:
lol, Yeah. I really wouldn't care if it was 100MB. My HDD can hold 160GB, and that's small by today's standard(for a full-sized laptop). Do you really care about 40MB? Why don't you just link it statically? That way you wouldn't have to package it with the whole lib, but only the part you use, or maybe provide the option for those who don't want to install the whole lib. |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 09:11 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 08 Jul 2010, 09:38
Tyler wrote: Every other app installs a billion libs with it, I don't see why Fasm should be held to a higher standard. Because it is fasm's way. Period. |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 09:38 |
|
|
revolution 08 Jul 2010, 09:55
Tyler wrote: I Every other app installs a billion libs with it, I don't see why Fasm should be held to a higher standard.  |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 09:55 |
|
|
Tyler 08 Jul 2010, 10:14
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
I could only think of 2 GUI apps that are pretty widely used, FF and Open Office. Both depend on gtk2. So I guess it's safe to assume anyone who would use the GUI version would have FF and/or Open Office, and would have installed gtk with it/them. |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 10:14 |
|
|
edfed 08 Jul 2010, 11:58
Tyler wrote:
good point. and gtk is the toolkit for gimp too, then, it is not a bad choise. |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 11:58 |
|
|
Tyler 08 Jul 2010, 12:13
Wikipedia says it was originally created for GIMP. It seems to be the de facto lib for most GUI apps on Linux. I've been looking through GUI packages I have installed, 9 out of 10 depend on gtk. Even lxde, the smallest usable DE IMO, depends on gtk.
|
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 12:13 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 08 Jul 2010, 15:59
Quote:
But the reason I recommended GTK is that the likelihood of the shared library being available on the system is very high, the distro must have to be too custom to not have it (which would indicate no LSB compliance). |
|||
|
08 Jul 2010, 15:59 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|