Think Pascal 4 on the Mac was really good too.
Let me tell you. You couldn't beat Turbo Pascal 4 for ease of use.
It ran off of a single floppy right out of the box. No
configuration, no downloading modules or patches. And it was FAST.
Especially compared to Microsoft's crappy developm
Whops. Actually that was for Pascal to C++. The only thing I can
find on Pascal to Java is a couple of papers discussing what it would
take to do it. But, seeing as how C++ is awfully close to Java I
don't think it would take much.
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.c
You're right. How did we ever get along before Google?
http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/ptoc/Readme.htm
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 12, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Don Lindsay wrote:
Hello;
I believe there already is one. Or maybe that is to C++, I dont
remembe
Hello;
I believe there already is one. Or maybe that is to C++, I dont
remember.
Don
On Jun 12, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
Maybe we need to develop a Turbo Pascal to Java converter? Then all
of us nostalgic folk could bask in the warm glow of units.
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PR
Maybe we need to develop a Turbo Pascal to Java converter? Then all
of us nostalgic folk could bask in the warm glow of units.
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 12, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Don Lindsay wrote:
Hello;
Keeping in the same vein as other naming convent
Let me tell you. You couldn't beat Turbo Pascal 4 for ease of use.
It ran off of a single floppy right out of the box. No configuration,
no downloading modules or patches. And it was FAST. Especially
compared to Microsoft's crappy development tools.
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
Hello;
Keeping in the same vein as other naming conventions with WO, I
respectfully recommend Fluffy Pascal.
Don
On Jun 12, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
Well, we already have WO Pascal, and it's me :-P Heck, we even have
two Pascal in the community. I guess I can be Fat Pascal
PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maven vs Ant
To: "Don Lindsay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WebObjects Development"
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 1:10 PM
How about "WO Pascal" or, better yet,
"TurboWO"!
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
Hey! There ya go we can get Borland to help. :)
Don
On Jun 12, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
How about "WO Pascal" or, better yet, "TurboWO"!
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Don Lindsay wrote:
He,he. WebObjects Cobol! Now
On 12-Jun-08, at 10:42 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
Well, we already have WO Pascal, and it's me :-P Heck, we even have
two Pascal in the community. I guess I can be Fat Pascal :-P
No, you are just a more robust implementation.
How about "WO Pascal" or, better yet, "TurboWO"!
--
Galen Rhod
Well, we already have WO Pascal, and it's me :-P Heck, we even have
two Pascal in the community. I guess I can be Fat Pascal :-P
How about "WO Pascal" or, better yet, "TurboWO"!
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Don Lindsay wrote:
Or perhaps WO .NET?
Being human is the strangest thing I have ever done.
Jerry Porter
--- On Thu, 6/12/08, Galen Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Galen Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Maven vs Ant
> To: "Don Lindsay" <[EMAIL PROTECT
How about "WO Pascal" or, better yet, "TurboWO"!
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Don Lindsay wrote:
He,he. WebObjects Cobol! Now thats an idea. :)
Don
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
Let's bring back Makefiles. Th
He,he. WebObjects Cobol! Now thats an idea. :)
Don
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
Let's bring back Makefiles. That's what I learned to use back in
the 80's. I miss the 80's. Where's my Pet Shop Boys CD?
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On J
Newer does not necessarily indicate better. XML vs plists (for most
things)? I find Ant better than make, though far from perfect. When
I have used Maven it always seems like far, far too much effort for
what work it saved.
Chuck
On Jun 11, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
Let's
Let's bring back Makefiles. That's what I learned to use back in the
80's. I miss the 80's. Where's my Pet Shop Boys CD?
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Henrique Prange wrote:
Hi G
On Jun 11, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Henrique Prange wrote:
Hi Galen,
I think it is not like WOLips vs Xcode where the latter was deprecated
and everybody must use the former. In this case, Maven is an
alternative to Ant. In fact, you can use both if you want (like Wonder
does). Anyway, a mechanism [
Hi Galen,
I think it is not like WOLips vs Xcode where the latter was deprecated
and everybody must use the former. In this case, Maven is an
alternative to Ant. In fact, you can use both if you want (like Wonder
does). Anyway, a mechanism [1][2] to develop WO projects with Maven is
not recent. Th
On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
So, is Maven becoming the new standard for building WebObjects
instead of Ant?
Personally, I really hope NOT. Using Maven to get WO snapshots are
one thing. Using it for all WO development is not something I see
any advantage in for the
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:49 AM, David LeBer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11-Jun-08, at 7:14 AM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
>
>> So, is Maven becoming the new standard for building WebObjects instead of
>> Ant? From a WebObjects point of view, what advantages does Maven have over
>> Ant?
>
> The ann
On 11-Jun-08, at 7:53 AM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I wasn't complaining or having a panic attack.
I just suddenly started seeing a lot of talk about Maven in the last
few days and was just wondering if that was were the community was
heading and if so what advantages there
Don't get me wrong. I wasn't complaining or having a panic attack. I
just suddenly started seeing a lot of talk about Maven in the last few
days and was just wondering if that was were the community was heading
and if so what advantages there were to it.
Just curious is all.
--
Galen Rho
On 11-Jun-08, at 7:14 AM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
So, is Maven becoming the new standard for building WebObjects
instead of Ant? From a WebObjects point of view, what advantages
does Maven have over Ant?
The announcement for Apple yesterday of a nightly build server is
interesting and welco
So, is Maven becoming the new standard for building WebObjects instead
of Ant? From a WebObjects point of view, what advantages does Maven
have over Ant?
--
Galen Rhodes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photoyoda.com
___
Do not post admin requests to
24 matches
Mail list logo
