Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #11752 > unrolled thread

A free version of C++ on Win (7)??

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com> - 2011-11-23 09:42 -0800
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-11-23 12:46 -0500
      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com> - 2011-11-23 10:37 -0800
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 08:05 +1300
          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "W. eWatson" <wolftracks@invalid.com> - 2011-11-24 07:10 -0800
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-23 20:24 +0100
      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-11-23 12:18 -0800
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-11-25 01:34 -0800
          [OT] Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-11-25 17:01 -0600
      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 01:59 -0800
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-11-24 10:59 -0600
          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-25 00:40 -0800
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-25 11:40 +0100
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-27 02:47 -0800
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Thomas Boell <tboell@domain.invalid> - 2011-11-27 16:56 +0100
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Adrien Haxaire <nntp@adrienhaxaire.org> - 2011-12-06 10:48 +0100
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 00:30 +0000
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-27 02:49 -0800
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-11-27 22:39 +0100
          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-25 12:29 +0000
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-11-25 22:38 -0600
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-23 21:27 +0100
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-11-23 14:38 -0600
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? puppi <fabricio.puppi@gmail.com> - 2011-11-23 17:40 -0800
      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 02:00 -0800
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? XeCycle <xecycle@gmail.com> - 2011-11-24 12:05 +0800
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-24 20:38 +0100
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-25 03:14 +0000
      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-25 12:31 +0100
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 14:37 +0000
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 00:38 +0000
          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-26 01:46 +0100
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 00:57 +0000
            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 01:00 +0000
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-26 02:08 +0100
                Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 02:32 +0000
                  Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-26 15:47 +1300
                    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-26 03:27 +0000
                      Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-26 11:00 +0100
                        [OT] A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-11-26 12:56 +0000
                          Re: [OT] A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? "Asger Joergensen" <Junk@Asger-P.dk> - 2011-11-26 13:46 +0000
                          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-26 08:50 -0800
                            Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 01:47 -0800
                  Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-11-26 12:46 +0000
              Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-27 02:58 -0800
                Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2011-11-28 02:42 +0000
                  Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-11-28 01:20 -0600
        Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-27 02:55 -0800
          Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Gert-Jan de Vos <gert-jan.de.vos@onsneteindhoven.nl> - 2011-11-27 07:05 -0800
    Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)?? Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-25 21:24 +0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#11752 — A free version of C++ on Win (7)??

I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11753

On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11755

On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>
> There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
>
> V
Is it free?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11756

On 11/24/11 07:37 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
>> On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>>
>> There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
>>

> Is it free?

Have you checked?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11786

On 11/23/2011 11:05 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 11/24/11 07:37 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>>>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>>>
>>> There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
>>>
>
>> Is it free?
>
> Have you checked?
>
"Wellll, paardoooon me."  -- Steve Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11757

On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.

The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++ 
Express". The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For 
a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to 
do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to 
trap you in a Microsoft-specific world, and this includes automatically 
generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).

The g++ compiler is part of the GNU (GNU is Not Unix) toolchain for 
*nix, or perhaps, for not *nix? It has two major ports to Windows, 
namely as part of Cygwin, and a freestanding version, which is called 
MinGW (Minimal GNU on Windows). There are many variants of MinGW g++ 
produced by different people, and ironically the most difficult way to 
get hold of this compiler is via the MinGW project's own pages...

An easy way to get the MinGW g++ compiler is to install an IDE such as 
Code::Blocks that has g++ as its default compiler. Unfortunately this is 
likely to get you a pretty old version. But it's easy, and you need the 
IDE anyway in order to use the debugger in a reasonable way.

Both compilers come complete with a set of command line tools.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11758

On Nov 23, 1:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
>
> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>
> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
>
> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
> Express". The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world, and this includes automatically
> generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).
>

It also produces executables that are significantly larger than
GCC on Linux.  The best thing I can say about the Microsoft
compiler is it sometimes provides better errors/warnings than
GCC.

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11811

On 23 marras, 22:18, Ebenezer <woodbria...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It also produces executables that are significantly larger than
> GCC on Linux.

I don't know about Linux, but in Windows VC actually makes
smaller executables in Release (non debug) mode than GCC
in similar mode (without debug information). On the other
hand GCC seems to include something that makes it more
portable even between Windows versions. Executables of VC
require some VC runtime libraries that aren't installed by
default in all Windows versions. (But I guess usually are.)

Starting with a clean project VC is like GCC, you can use
standard C/C++ libraries and write portable code.
I have made it a habit to write code in VC (because it has
a great debugger) and then create a final executable in GCC.
It's cool, because they both seem to catch different kind
of issues and warn about them, making the source code even
more portable and improving the code quality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11829 — [OT] Re: A free version of C++ on Win (7)??

Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote in news:5b7c44d4-3911-433c-b332-
03a08ae5da7e@h21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On the other
> hand GCC seems to include something that makes it more
> portable even between Windows versions. Executables of VC
> require some VC runtime libraries that aren't installed by
> default in all Windows versions. (But I guess usually are.)

If you are not using DLL-s (or are using them very carefully) you can 
instruct VC to link against static versions of C and C++ runtimes. This way 
the application will not depend or require installation of any separate 
runtime libraries.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11775

On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:

> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>
> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
>
> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
> Express".

one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.

> The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,

that's a bit harsh.

> and this includes automatically
>  generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).

quite

> The g++ compiler is part of the GNU (GNU is Not Unix) toolchain for
> *nix, or perhaps, for not *nix?

it also traps you into a non-standard mode by default. Though
admittedly it doesn't generate code.

> It has two major ports to Windows,
> namely as part of Cygwin, and a freestanding version, which is called
> MinGW (Minimal GNU on Windows). There are many variants of MinGW g++
> produced by different people, and ironically the most difficult way to
> get hold of this compiler is via the MinGW project's own pages...
>
> An easy way to get the MinGW g++ compiler is to install an IDE such as
> Code::Blocks that has g++ as its default compiler. Unfortunately this is
> likely to get you a pretty old version. But it's easy, and you need the
> IDE anyway in order to use the debugger in a reasonable way.
>
> Both compilers come complete with a set of command line tools.

I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11791

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
>+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
>
>> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>>
>> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
>>
>> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
>> Express".
>
>one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
>decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
>also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.
>

Perhaps not as "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" as you think. Name another
commercial alternative for Windows programming? There are few
remaining.

>> The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
>> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
>> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
>> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,
>
>that's a bit harsh.

Agree. 

Windows IS a "Microsoft-specific world". I have always failed to
understand why people get upset over that simple fact. Microsoft owns
Windows. Period. 

So they give away a development platform with the deliberate intention
to get you to buy the full version. Duh!

>
...
>
>I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
>debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
>me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.

All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>

-ralph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11810

On Nov 24, 4:59 pm, ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
> >+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:

> >> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>
> >> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
>
> >> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
> >> Express".
>
> >one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
> >decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
> >also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.
>
> Perhaps not as "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" as you think. Name another
> commercial alternative for Windows programming? There are few
> remaining.

it just seemed a dumb naming convention. Visula C used to be (may
still be) a different language from C. I suspect Microsoft achieved
dominance of the Window's compiler market by means other than pure
technical excellence.

But it is a good C++ compiler and it is a reasonable GUI.

> >> The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
> >> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
> >> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
> >> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,
>
> >that's a bit harsh.
>
> Agree.
>
> Windows IS a "Microsoft-specific world". I have always failed to
> understand why people get upset over that simple fact. Microsoft owns
> Windows. Period.

but you can write standard C/C++ programs (so-called console programs)
and you can write applications with little Windows's dependence (eg.
using OpenGL). You can also write Win32 programs without using their
<expletive> "wizards" (boiler-plate generator). Sometimes it would be
be nice if they made this easier, or more obvious.

"meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick
to anger"
Gandalf The Grey

> So they give away a development platform with the deliberate intention
> to get you to buy the full version. Duh!

I don't feel any particular compulsion to buy the full version (and
I've used the full version- when someone else is paying for it).

> >I gave up on MingW as I [had] difficulty persauding it to generate
> >debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
> >me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.
>
> All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
> stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>

gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11812

Le 25/11/11 09:40, Nick Keighley a écrit :
>
> gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.
>

This is the contrary to my experience and the experience of all the
people at work.

We have a huge C++ program (a database management system) written in
C++ and we run under linux and windows.

Nobody ever develops under linux, the problem is that there, the
only choice you have is the terrible gcc/gdb combination, what
makes any debugging and developing an incredible effort.

Under windows we use the C++ IDE above all for the Go To Definition
feature, what saves us HOURS of grepping each week. As you (may)
know, with several dozens of overloaded functions of the same name
it is impossible to know which function will be called unless
you have an exact map of the class structure and template structure
of the application.

Problem is, the application is too big to fit in the head of a single
developer as a whole, nobody unerstand all the details since the
application has been debeloped by the team for over 6 years.

Many people have left and come, and it is today not possible to debug
a problem without having this feature.

When you develop, the IDE proposes you choices that avoid common
mistaks and allow you to think more into WHAT are you writing rather
than

"Was it SomeCompositeName, someCompositeName or some_composite_name"?

Yes, pedants will start with "Ahhh but you should have enforced
consistent naming conventions" and all that crap that is good in theory
but never found in real programs.

Another problem of gcc is that it generates slower executables than
MSVC, and specially slower than the Intel compiler, the best x86
compiler around.

Under linux, it is impossible to avoid the gcc/gdb combination but using
a windows machine we can still use the "Go to definition" feature
if we run in parallel the gdb debugger and the Visual C++ IDE.

And no, Eclipse is not usable. Written in Java, it chockes at the
hundred thousands of lines of the application.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11861

On Nov 25, 10:40 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 25/11/11 09:40, Nick Keighley a écrit :

> > gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.
>
> This is the contrary to my experience and the experience of all the
> people at work.

Which bit? I've used gcc on Linux it *is* fine. I've had problems in
the past with gcc on Windows. But this was a while ago so it may have
been fixed.

> We have a huge C++ program (a database management system) written in
> C++ and we run under linux and windows.
>
> Nobody ever develops under linux, the problem is that there, the
> only choice you have is the terrible gcc/gdb combination, what
> makes any debugging and developing an incredible effort.

what's wrong with gcc? gdb can be wrapped in a GUI based debugger.
I've even used the cli version of gdb and its surprisingly usable.

> Under windows we use the C++ IDE above all for the Go To Definition
> feature, what saves us HOURS of grepping each week. As you (may)
> know, with several dozens of overloaded functions of the same name
> it is impossible to know which function will be called unless
> you have an exact map of the class structure and template structure
> of the application.

yes grep is a bit in adequate for C++. I've used other tools that can
do this and at least one of them runs under Linux. But it costs
money.

> Problem is, the application is too big to fit in the head of a single
> developer as a whole, nobody unerstand all the details since the
> application has been debeloped by the team for over 6 years.

I'm quite familar with this

> Many people have left and come, and it is today not possible to debug
> a problem without having this feature.
>
> When you develop, the IDE proposes you choices that avoid common
> mistaks and allow you to think more into WHAT are you writing rather
> than
>
> "Was it SomeCompositeName, someCompositeName or some_composite_name"?
>
> Yes, pedants will start with "Ahhh but you should have enforced
> consistent naming conventions" and all that crap that is good in theory
> but never found in real programs.
>
> Another problem of gcc is that it generates slower executables than
> MSVC, and specially slower than the Intel compiler, the best x86
> compiler around.
>
> Under linux, it is impossible to avoid the gcc/gdb combination but using
> a windows machine we can still use the "Go to definition" feature
> if we run in parallel the gdb debugger and the Visual C++ IDE.
>
> And no, Eclipse is not usable. Written in Java, it chockes at the
> hundred thousands of lines of the application.

I've not had a good experience with Eclipse. But this may be me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11868

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:40:40 +0100
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:

> Le 25/11/11 09:40, Nick Keighley a écrit :
> >
> > gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.
> >
> 
> This is the contrary to my experience and the experience of all the
> people at work.
> 
> We have a huge C++ program (a database management system) written in
> C++ and we run under linux and windows.
> 
> Nobody ever develops under linux

except lots.


>, the problem is that there, the
> only choice you have is the terrible gcc/gdb combination, what
> makes any debugging and developing an incredible effort.
> 
> Under windows we use the C++ IDE above all for the Go To Definition
> feature, what saves us HOURS of grepping each week. As you (may)
> know, with several dozens of overloaded functions of the same name
> it is impossible to know which function will be called unless
> you have an exact map of the class structure and template structure
> of the application.

CodeLite and Code::Blocks are examples of IDEs which have this feature
and run on Linux.


> [...]
> When you develop, the IDE proposes you choices that avoid common
> mistaks and allow you to think more into WHAT are you writing rather
> than

They do auto-completion too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12091

On 25/11/2011 11:40, jacob navia wrote:
> Under windows we use the C++ IDE above all for the Go To Definition
> feature, what saves us HOURS of grepping each week.

With Emacs, it is M-.

You need to run one command from time to time to update the file with 
the tags, but that's short.

I agree it saves lots of time.

Adrien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11831

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
<78d98ac9-5579-4e64-9bbc-9cce00e6c138@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> thusly:

>[...] Visula C used to be (may
>still be) a different language from C.

and this claim is based on what?
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 version available for download
 <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

      Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11862

On Nov 26, 12:30 am, legalize+jee...@mail.xmission.com (Richard)
wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

is this addressed to me? If I've done that I wasn't aware of it.

> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
> <78d98ac9-5579-4e64-9bbc-9cce00e6c...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> thusly:
>
> >[...] Visual C used to be (may still be) a different language from C.
>
> and this claim is based on what?

sounds like on a misapprehension. Visual C++ always had a pure C++
core?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11869

Op 25-Nov-11 9:40, Nick Keighley schreef:
> On Nov 24, 4:59 pm, ralph<nt_consultin...@yahoo.net>  wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
>> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach"<alf.p.steinbach
>>> +use...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
>
>>>>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>>
>>>> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
>>
>>>> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
>>>> Express".
>>
>>> one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
>>> decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
>>> also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.
>>
>> Perhaps not as "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" as you think. Name another
>> commercial alternative for Windows programming? There are few
>> remaining.
>
> it just seemed a dumb naming convention. Visula C used to be (may
> still be) a different language from C. I suspect Microsoft achieved
> dominance of the Window's compiler market by means other than pure
> technical excellence.

Technical incompetence of its competitors is one reason (if you have 
every used Borland C++ Builder for a non-trival project you know what I 
mean).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11814

On Thu, 2011-11-24, ralph wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
> <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
>>debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
>>me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.
>
> All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
> stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>

On Windows perhaps that's true, but in any (free) Unix it's certainly
not -- unless you think anything which isn't one big IDE is a
DIY construction kit.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web