 | | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
Hello Steve, I don't know what happened to the source code of Ldraw and Ledit? LDraw and Ledit are the only programs that are limited to the 8.3 scheme (perhaps one or two old tools too). As far as I know there are easy to use and easy to implement (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
(...) That is not the real problem, there are still operating systems in use that simply don't support long filenames. We are a world wide community with participants from regions that are less wealthy then yours, and these might still use machines (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
Hello Manfred, I don't want to be ignorant, but... - World is evolving. Even not so wealthy users should be now at a development level of Windows 95a (first version) (how many years Win95 exists now?). - The 'old' technology (here the 8.3 filenames) (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
A few things (any old-timers feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about anything): 1. LDraw/LEdit (the root of all derivative work) are DOS programs. As such, they can never support more than 8.3 filenames. 2. James Jessiman--the author of these (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
Hello Travis, (...) That's no point. If the source of LDraw would be available it would be easy to implement long filename support... even in a DOS program. But... (...) ... if the source was never available my point if view has died. It was just a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
(...) And the rich set the pace ? What you say here only confirms that you're part of an economy with a relatively high consumption rate. Maybe your view of "the World" is not a realistic one. For instance, I personaly made the tranfer from MS-DOS (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
(...) Oh, you mean that a DOS directory is limited to a specific number of files? I recall that Norton Commander 5.0 for DOS is limited to, I think it was 2000 files... -- Tore Eriksson Sweden ICQ: 76066510 LEGO: MOC++++ FS,SP,TO++ TC+ LS YB@m (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Manfred Moolhuysen writes: Please no emotionful 'rich people set the pace , poor people are starving' discussions. That is off-topic. I'm a technical consultant and a programmer. So of course I have a technical point of view. (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
This is unbearable. I propose a potential solution to the problem (URL) and nobody bothers to comment on it. Instead everyone seems to prefer to rehash the tired old arguments on the merits of various operating systems. Who cares? This has been (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
|
Hello Tore! (...) recall that Norton Commander 5.0 for DOS (...) No. FAT16 has only limitations in the root directory for maximum number of files. That NC was limited to 2000 files was a memory allocation problem. What I meant was: 1) The first (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
