MiniDoc

[stahta01]

Is the fact that this plugin links to wxscintilla_cb a problem?

When using MiniDoc_wx31_64.cbp

Edit2: I am asking because non of the C::B contrib plugins do this linking.

Tim S.

[Krice]

Your comment is useless; have you built Code::Blocks from source, before?

Yes, sadly I have and it didn't even work (that OSX adventure, remember?). You open source guys are so weird, you always try to turn it to users, everything is their problem, even when you fail to provide any kind of sane instructions how to compile something actually. Why it has to be this hard, there is nothing you gain by doing it this way. Well, maybe keep these projects to yourself so you get all the donations, maybe that's the reason, who knows.

[stahta01]

Your comment is useless; have you built Code::Blocks from source, before?

Yes, sadly I have and it didn't even work (that OSX adventure, remember?). You open source guys are so weird, you always try to turn it to users, everything is their problem, even when you fail to provide any kind of sane instructions how to compile something actually. Why it has to be this hard, there is nothing you gain by doing it this way. Well, maybe keep these projects to yourself so you get all the donations, maybe that's the reason, who knows.

Till you learn how to build a working Code::Blocks I strongly suggest you avoid the "Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) » Plugins development" sub-form.
It assumes you have the ability to build a working C::B from source!

Tim S.

[Krice]

Till you learn how to build a working Code::Blocks I strongly suggest you avoid

I can still comment about the quality of source code even if I didn't know anything about that particular language or library or whatever. What I find hilarious about Code::Blocks's code itself is that you people don't even cppcheck it before release. It's really no wonder why these open source projects are a mess, because that's what they are. Like I said, don't try to turn it to someone else's fault when your code is sub-standard, is badly commented and there are no clear instructions on how to use it.

[stahta01]

I suggest reading and following this website rules!
http://forums.next.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,9996.0.html

I think you have not yet violated the rules. But, you have violated rules that other websites I am on use.

You miss-quoted me.

Tim S.

[Krice]

But, you have violated rules that other websites I am on use.

What does this even mean? I'm out this "forum" anyway, you can't even say anything without getting accused of something. I think I'm going to delete Code::Blocks and stop using it forever, thanks to you.

[MortenMacFly]

What does this even mean? I'm out this "forum" anyway, you can't even say anything without getting accused of something.

Oh dear, the problem is not what you say but how. You just blame, right? I don't know why people stopped being polite these days. Maybe it would be different with some kind of good-behaviour.

You can be sure that we do also know the flaws you mention and trying to work on that. But its also true, that OpenSource projects without being funded and thus havin full-time personal can hardly have a decent quality management. And I guess you know, that cppchecking the whole C::B source base will block the desktop PC's of our fellow developers for days. Would you want to block your PC?

Please be constructive, give some good advises and help. For example, you could start by providing configurations for the GitHub project to link C::B to recent code checkers there such that we get a continuous report first (CI).