Message-ID: <COL101-W69DA56FC94A7E8C8FA70F2E6890@phx.gbl>
From: Jay <jayk123 AT hotmail DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: cygwin Digest (multiple subjects)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:12:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1216313240.25850.ezmlm@cygwin.com>
References: <1216313240 DOT 25850 DOT ezmlm AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


>> cygwin Digest 17 Jul 2008 16:47:20 -0000 Issue 6050


  I know these are tired subjects but like everyone else
  I have thought about and experienced them a lot and
  formed some opinions.


> CRLF vs. LF


 >> Subject: Re: Freeze with the letter "e"


  I find that "a lot" of code is ok either way, and a lot of code only accepts LF.
  Code that demands CRLF is "rare".
  In particular, gcc, Visual C++ compiler/editor, wordpad, are all ok either way.
  Various Unix code -- sh -- wants LF.
  Notepad wants CRLF.
  Notepad I can do without.
  Visual C++ editor inserts CRLF, so yeah I constantly run dos2unix, annoying,
    but the best "workflow" I have so far. I can't switch editors, I have tried.
  It is dumb of Visual C++ not to notice the prevailing custom in a file, be
   it the line endings, or the use of tabs vs. spaces, or the intended size
   of the tabs, or the placement of the braces, and not "automatically" continue
   to format that way. It is quite hellish to read code with 8 space tabs presented
   as 4 spaces. I thought the code was misformated, my mistake.


> backspace key
> Subject: Re: un-indenting doesn't work with vim

  Configurability is great, but having good defaults is also very important.
  I too am amazed at how bad the defaults often are on Unix.
  And that the configuration is rarely well exposed in a gui.
  Once you know how to edit the various text files, great, but it's nice
  to have an option for a less steep learning curve.
  You know, instead of various text files, Windows command line users
  can use the registry -- .reg files and reg.exe. But when first learning,
  use the gui. It is nice to have *both* options.


  And, no defaults are going to suit everyone. And whatever defaults
   are chosen, if they don't suck too badly, will be the overwhelming majority
   in use. Is it better to have no defaults and everyone chose, or better to
   pick something and have it usually go unchanged and people not know about
   the options? There are pluses and minuses either way. The better the defaults,
   even if they aren't "ideal", the less often people will find their personal ideal.


  An analogy I read somewhere, I think the Unix Haters' Handbook, is
   imagine if the disk driver worked like the terminal. That it didn't
   really work in the default configuration.
   What good is the default configuration? 
  (The book is a bit out of date these days, but highly recommended.) 


 > what console to use 
 >> Terminal copy-pas te

   I think cmd is underrated as an interactive shell.
   Sure, it is a terrible programming language, I try to use Python instead,
   but it is fast, has great command line editing -- home, end, control-arrow
   all work, forward and backward delete, up/down for history, tab completion
   even if perhaps not the best tab completion, and, one of my favorite
   features and hard to describe, F8 -- completion against history,
   easy copy/paste (be sure to enable quickedit, but be careful not to use it
   by accident), just that it lacks triple click to select lines.
   You just select stuff to copy and right click to paste.
   A half decent default color scheme -- gray text on a black background,
   which I change to white text through a nice gui, rxvt defaulted to
   something not good.


   Even has a small programming language, it has some nice features.
      dir /s/b
      dir /s/b | findstr foo
        or the similar:
        dir /s/b foo*
      del /s *.dll
      for %a in (dll exe obj) do del /s *.%a
      etc.


 Much easier than "find".
 Granted, backtick isn't fully there, set -x is missing.
 Again, it's ok for very very small amounts of scripting only.


 #! support would be nice, besides the ftype/assoc/%PATHEXT% methods.
   Though prepending your Perl or JScript, or, I haven't done this yet, Python,
   such as to make file a .cmd file, is convenient, but reduces portability.
 And portability to other systems -- why I use Python.


I'll check out console and poderosa though, thanks.


> From: douglas AT gemignani DOT org
> Subject: Build DLLs for windows


 > I'm using cygwin for compiling projects and it just works fine, i have
 > a project that i use openssl and generate an executable and it's
 > everything working. What i need to do now is to understand how can I
 > generate an DLL and a .LIB with the links for using them at Borland
 > Builder 4 so I can make a visual interface for my application.

 > I know that there are other options, but I want to be able to run my
 > code without the need of cygwin on the target machine.

 > I read that i would need to use the cygwin1.dll, but I don't
 > understand how. I hope I can find some guidance here!

Douglas, if I ignore the first part of your question, mentioning of
openssl, and pay attention only to the desire to not require cygwin1.dll
the answer would be to look into "mingwin", or the -mnocygwin or -mno-cygwin or
whatnot switch in Cygwin.

However odds are very non-zero that your dependency on openssl will
"conflict" with that.

 - Jay

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/