FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Default value for -gui switch

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Build
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Crispy



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:39 am    Post subject: Default value for -gui switch Reply with quote

Quote:
switch: -gui Forces a GUI application to be created.
...
This switch can also be used to specify which version of Windows to build the application for. To do this, it takes the format of -gui:X.Y where X.Y is the Windows version number. Use 4.0 for Windows NT, 2000, and ME, and 5.0 for Windows XP.

By default, Build uses the version of Windows it is running under.


Is there a particular reason for using the current version of Windows as the default minimum operating system? I just spent about an hour trying to figure out why my program would run under Windows XP but refused to run under Windows 98 when I passed the -gui switch. I eventually realised that I had to specify -gui:4.0 instead. Once I did that, it worked fine under both Windows 98 and Windows XP.

It seems to me that version 4.0 (Windows 95) is a more sensible default. There's no reason to exclude users of older versions of Windows unless we really have to, and most code that works on Windows XP will work on Windows 98 (and even 95) if it's given a chance.

If anyone actually uses the current default, perhaps "-gui:this" or similar could be used to specify the operating system which Bud is running under. I can't see a use for that though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Parnell



Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:14 am    Post subject: Re: Default value for -gui switch Reply with quote

Crispy wrote:
Quote:
switch: -gui Forces a GUI application to be created.
...
This switch can also be used to specify which version of Windows to build the application for. To do this, it takes the format of -gui:X.Y where X.Y is the Windows version number. Use 4.0 for Windows NT, 2000, and ME, and 5.0 for Windows XP.

By default, Build uses the version of Windows it is running under.


Is there a particular reason for using the current version of Windows as the default minimum operating system?

No, it just seemed like sensible default to me. I imagine that most people are building to run on the same system that they are building on.
Crispy wrote:
I just spent about an hour trying to figure out why my program would run under Windows XP but refused to run under Windows 98 when I passed the -gui switch. I eventually realised that I had to specify -gui:4.0 instead. Once I did that, it worked fine under both Windows 98 and Windows XP.
This is why I went to the trouble to document its behaviour for you. I assume that people will read the docs too.
Crispy wrote:
It seems to me that version 4.0 (Windows 95) is a more sensible default. There's no reason to exclude users of older versions of Windows unless we really have to, and most code that works on Windows XP will work on Windows 98 (and even 95) if it's given a chance.
I have not excluded anyone. Your usage of the right -gui option proves that. Windows 95/98/ME is extremely old now and I guess that more systems are now in use using Windows XP than old versions. Maybe I'm right ... maybe I'm wrong, but if I made Windows 4.0 the default I'm sure I would have had many complaints about that.
Crispy wrote:
If anyone actually uses the current default, perhaps "-gui:this" or similar could be used to specify the operating system which Bud is running under. I can't see a use for that though.
Neither can I. I am not convinced yet that the current behaviour should change.
_________________
--
Derek
skype name: derek.j.parnell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crispy



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:19 am    Post subject: Re: Default value for -gui switch Reply with quote

Derek Parnell wrote:
Crispy wrote:
Is there a particular reason for using the current version of Windows as the default minimum operating system?

No, it just seemed like sensible default to me. I imagine that most people are building to run on the same system that they are building on.

It's not a question of which system they're building for, but rather which system is their minimum audience.

Quote:
This is why I went to the trouble to document its behaviour for you. I assume that people will read the docs too.

You're right, I should have thought to read the documentation. To be honest I forgot that there was documentation, since I'd never needed to refer to it before. I did read the command-line help, but didn't realise at first that the specified Windows version was a minimum.

However, assuming that people will read documentation is generally not a good idea; especially not with a utility like Bud, which is admirably set-and-forget most of the time (hence why I'd never needed to read the documentation before). Sensible defaults are a good thing.

When I mentioned having to spend an hour figuring it out, I wasn't complaining - rather, I was illustrating how the other non-documentation-readers of the world would appreciate not having to go through that.

Quote:
I have not excluded anyone. Your usage of the right -gui option proves that.

Hey, hey... I didn't say "you". I said "we", as in "people who write Windows software". In general, people who write Windows software would like that software to work under as many versions of Windows as possible, provided they don't have to expend extra effort to do so. (And some people will even

Quote:
Windows 95/98/ME is extremely old now and I guess that more systems are now in use using Windows XP than old versions. Maybe I'm right ... maybe I'm wrong, but if I made Windows 4.0 the default I'm sure I would have had many complaints about that.

I'm not sure why people would complain about their application working on older Windows versions.

You're right that Windows XP is probably more common than 95/98/ME. And yes, anyone using 95/98/ME really does need to upgrade whether they like it or not. I'm just sympathetic to the people who don't want to (I used to be one of them) - plus, I don't want to exclude a market segment unnecessarily. Smile

Quote:
Neither can I. I am not convinced yet that the current behaviour should change.

You can't see a reason for the current default behaviour to be supported, but you're not convinced that it should change? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but that sounds a bit odd to me.

Anyway, there's no need to be so combative, it was just a suggestion. Smile I've solved my problem, so whether or not the default gets changed doesn't matter to me personally. I'm just trying to be helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Parnell



Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:25 am    Post subject: Re: Default value for -gui switch Reply with quote

Crispy wrote:
Derek Parnell wrote:
Crispy wrote:
Is there a particular reason for using the current version of Windows as the default minimum operating system?

No, it just seemed like sensible default to me. I imagine that most people are building to run on the same system that they are building on.

It's not a question of which system they're building for, but rather which system is their minimum audience.

But where does that line of thinking stop? Should I also cater for Windows 3.1? 1.0? MS-DOS using one of the many other GUI's for that? I still think that the Builder's system is a reasonable default. If the builder wishes to target older systems then they still can.

Crispy wrote:
Quote:
This is why I went to the trouble to document its behaviour for you. I assume that people will read the docs too.

You're right, I should have thought to read the documentation. To be honest I forgot that there was documentation, since I'd never needed to refer to it before. I did read the command-line help, but didn't realise at first that the specified Windows version was a minimum.

However, assuming that people will read documentation is generally not a good idea; especially not with a utility like Bud, which is admirably set-and-forget most of the time (hence why I'd never needed to read the documentation before). Sensible defaults are a good thing.

When I mentioned having to spend an hour figuring it out, I wasn't complaining - rather, I was illustrating how the other non-documentation-readers of the world would appreciate not having to go through that.

Yes, one can lead a horse to water ... but that's not my loss. I write documentation because not everything is intuitive to every person. And I will continue to assume that writing documentation is not a waste of time (thus assuming that people will read it some time).
Crispy wrote:
Quote:
I have not excluded anyone. Your usage of the right -gui option proves that.

Hey, hey... I didn't say "you". I said "we", as in "people who write Windows software". In general, people who write Windows software would like that software to work under as many versions of Windows as possible, provided they don't have to expend extra effort to do so. (And some people will even

"we" includes myself, no? And I just wished to point out that I am not excluding any Windows developer here.
Crispy wrote:

Quote:
Neither can I. I am not convinced yet that the current behaviour should change.

You can't see a reason for the current default behaviour to be supported, but you're not convinced that it should change? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but that sounds a bit odd to me.
Forgiven. You said
Quote:
"If anyone actually uses the current default, perhaps "-gui:this" or similar could be used to specify the operating system which Bud is running under. I can't see a use for that though."
and it is that idea (i.e. -gui:this is not a good idea)which I'm agreeing with, not the notion that the existing default choice is a poor one.
Crispy wrote:

Anyway, there's no need to be so combative, it was just a suggestion. Smile I've solved my problem, so whether or not the default gets changed doesn't matter to me personally. I'm just trying to be helpful.

I'm sorry you see this as being combative. I'm not meaning to be. I feel that you are making a request for a change and I'm not convinved yet that it is needed so I wished to explain why I feel that way.
_________________
--
Derek
skype name: derek.j.parnell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crispy



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I missed this before because the forum decided to mark everything as read for some reason. Silly forum. Confused

In hindsight, I guess the builder's system is a reasonable default, since otherwise you'd occasionally get problems where a Windows XP user would use an XP-only function in their program and it wouldn't compile for them unless they changed -gui to -gui:6.0 on the command line. So, no worries.

It would be nice if the command-line help and the other documentation mentioned that -gui specifically forbids older versions of Windows from running the program, since that's not immediately obvious to ignoramuses like myself. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Build All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group