(→Build) |
(→Make and run before explaining: new section) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::I personally haven't tried the g++ method, that was added by someone else. Does linking against those libraries fix the errors? Does it work for you with the cmake method? --[[User:Milliams|milliams]] 20:47, 25 January 2008 (CET) | ::I personally haven't tried the g++ method, that was added by someone else. Does linking against those libraries fix the errors? Does it work for you with the cmake method? --[[User:Milliams|milliams]] 20:47, 25 January 2008 (CET) | ||
:::Thanks you, Milliams, it complies with cmake. I copied the g++ instructions, including the additional options, straight from the page and still no joy. | :::Thanks you, Milliams, it complies with cmake. I copied the g++ instructions, including the additional options, straight from the page and still no joy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Make and run before explaining == | ||
| + | |||
| + | As far as I can see, | ||
| + | it presents the code, | ||
| + | explains it, | ||
| + | shows how to build with g++ (without cmake), | ||
| + | building with cmake, | ||
| + | finally running it | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, I would prefer it to present code and run it (with no explaining), like to a monkey. After showing it works, explaining why it works or how it works. | ||
| + | I would find that much more fun this way. | ||
| + | Got any ideas why it should not be that way? | ||
| + | --Bogdan Bivolaru | ||
Adding authors to wiki pages seems counterintuitive to me. The wiki is editable by everybody. Why does it matter who the author of a tutorial is? IMHO the only thing that matters is that the tutorial is kept up to date. --Mattr 03:31, 4 January 2007 (CET)
I don't know if this is the place to post this, but I tried to follow this tutorial and get an "error: ‘ki18n’ was not declared in this scope", when trying to compile using the big command gcc main.cpp ...
Does the g++ command work for you as described? I needed to add -lQtXml, lQtSvg and lQtNetwork.
include/KDE/../kmessagebox.h:1128: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before ‘(’ token
but hundreds, possibly thousands of errors apparently affecting nearly every header.
As far as I can see,
it presents the code, explains it, shows how to build with g++ (without cmake), building with cmake, finally running it
Well, I would prefer it to present code and run it (with no explaining), like to a monkey. After showing it works, explaining why it works or how it works. I would find that much more fun this way. Got any ideas why it should not be that way? --Bogdan Bivolaru