Sujet : Re: Improving build system
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.arch.embeddedDate : 15. May 2025, 10:17:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1004bg1$3218k$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 15/05/2025 01:00, Nicolas Paul Colin de Glocester wrote:
Buona sera!
On Wed, 14 May 2025, pozz wrote:
"[. . .] When it comes to stupid and big IDEs [. . .]
[. . .]
It is already a miracle if that software runs without problems with the default
installation path. I don't want to imagine what happens if I changed it."
If these IDEs would not be trustworthy, then you would need to buy good
alternatives.
Don't be silly. There /are/ no alternatives that are more trustworthy - they just have different failure or risk points. There can be benefits in buying a commercial IDE, and/or a commercial toolchain, but lower risk of bugs, quirks or installation issues is most certainly not one of them.
Improving build system
Re: Improving build system
