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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#11852 — Re: [OT] A free version of C++ on Win (7)??

Hi Leigh

> 
> Alf you are not just a troll; you are a spam troll as you have now posted the 
> same off-topic platform specific dross twice in two days. TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
> 
> /Leigh

You are very much contributing Your self, when You don't delete all
those quotes.

Please!

Best regards
Asger-P 

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

#11855

On Nov 26, 4:56 am, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> Alf you are not just a troll; you are a spam troll as you have now
> posted the same off-topic platform specific dross twice in two days.
> TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
>
> /Leigh

I have a crazy idea, Leigh.  If his posts offend you so much, maybe
you could ignore them?

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

#11882

On Nov 26, 4:50 pm, Squeamizh <sque...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:56 am, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Alf you are not just a troll; you are a spam troll as you have now
> > posted the same off-topic platform specific dross twice in two days.
> > TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
>
> > /Leigh
>
> I have a crazy idea, Leigh.  If his posts offend you so much, maybe
> you could ignore them?

Leigh has substantial form in not being able to operate a killfile
properly.

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

#11850

Richard <legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com> wrote:
> *sigh*
> 
> The more you talk, the more you convince me you're just a *nix fanboy
> with an axe to grind against MS.
> 
> The whole point of TCHAR and the _txxx macros/functions is to make
> your code portable to either ANSI or UNICODE builds on Windows.  In
> the case of _tmain in an ANSI build, it expands to standard C++
> signature for main.

Exactly, and this means that the code won't compile on any other compiler
unless you
#define TCHAR char
#define _tmain main
which is essentially what VS is doing if you don't
#define UNICODE

It's not really portable but also no trap without escape, since it's really
easy to fix once you change your compiler.

Tobi

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

#11863

On Nov 26, 1:00 am, legalize+jee...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Oh, and _tmain and TCHAR generate perfectly compliant standard C++
> code when you compile for ANSI and not UNICODE builds.  That's the
> whole POINT of TCHAR and the _txxx functions.

but your code is now not portable to non-Windows syztems.

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

#11874

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

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
<ddceb632-ad4b-4b2c-aa39-84ca89140101@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> thusly:

>On Nov 26, 1:00 am, legalize+jee...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>> Oh, and _tmain and TCHAR generate perfectly compliant standard C++
>> code when you compile for ANSI and not UNICODE builds.  That's the
>> whole POINT of TCHAR and the _txxx functions.
>
>but your code is now not portable to non-Windows syztems.

...which is IRRELEVANT since the original poster asked about a
compiler FOR WINDOWS, just like it says in the subject line.
-- 
"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]

#11879

legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote in
news:jauseq$gt1$1@news.xmission.com: 

> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> 
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
> <ddceb632-ad4b-4b2c-aa39-84ca89140101@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> thusly: 
> 
>>On Nov 26, 1:00 am, legalize+jee...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>>> Oh, and _tmain and TCHAR generate perfectly compliant standard C++
>>> code when you compile for ANSI and not UNICODE builds.  That's the
>>> whole POINT of TCHAR and the _txxx functions.
>>
>>but your code is now not portable to non-Windows syztems.
> 
> ...which is IRRELEVANT since the original poster asked about a
> compiler FOR WINDOWS, just like it says in the subject line.

That's up to the OP to decide if this is irrelevant or not, isn't it? 
Obviously OP does not know much about this topic, so clarifying such 
details might help him. No need to take this as a personal assault!

Cheers
Paavo

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

#11865

On Nov 25, 11:31 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25.11.2011 04:14, Richard wrote:
>
> > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> This is good advice in general.
>
> > "W. eWatson"<wolftra...@invalid.com>  spake the secret code
> > <jajbao$6j...@dont-email.me>  thusly:
>
> >> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
>
> > Get Visual C++ Express Edition.  It's free and has no limitations on
> > the code that you produce with it (i.e. you can develop commercial
> > products with it).
>
> > Using gcc or other *nix-derived compilers is fine *if* you never intend
> > to write programs that use the Win32 API or anything other than POSIX
> > style system interfaces.  Otherwise, its just too much pain and I'd
> > recommend using the Visual C++ Express Edition instead.
>
> Well that's highly misleading.
>
> MinGW g++ supports ordinary API level programming, which covers most of
> the Windows API.
>
> But in my experience g++ does not in general support the latest
> Microsoft "technologies", whether buzzword or useful. For example, there
> was a time when g++ did not support GDI+, which is/was a very useful new
> "technology" (essentially added graphics capabilities that had been
> lacking for about ten years or so). I think but I'm not sure that GDI+
> support has been added to g++ now. Anyway, creating a g++ binding was
> quite laborious because Microsoft, unnecessarily, used Visual C++
> compiler-specific features and really Bad Practices ,such as using min
> and max macros instead of the functions from <algorithm>, in their GDI+
> headers. There are two possibilities: unbelievable incompetence, or
> intentional attempt to trap users in Microsoft land.
>
> > As for Visual C++ "tricking" you into using Windows specific items,
> > I'd say that's just disgruntled *nix fanboy sentiment talking.  It
> > isn't hard at all to write very portable code using Visual C++.  I
> > have done it for years.  If you don't know what's Windows or Visual
> > C++ specific in any project template, then read the docs on it.
> > Everything that is Windows/VC specific is documented as such.
>
> > As for the badness of "generated" code, Visual C++ simply recognizes
> > that each application type has some boilerplate that is the same from
> > project to project.  Writing a console application?  You're going to
> > need a main().  And so-on.  The project templates simply save you some
> > work by generating this boiler plate when you create the project.
>
> > There's nothing magic or evil about this code, you can edit it or
> > delete it to your heart's content.
>
> It's true that Visual C++ *enables* you to write standard code.
>
> But sometimes you have to work really hard at it. Like, when it
> presumably with the best of intentions try to help you by rewriting your
> standard-compliant XHTML code to Microsoft-specific rubble. I remember
> how ironic this was when MS released Internet Explorer 7, I think it
> was, anyway the version after the long hiatus, the version with better
> support for standards. The MS web page about this new version was
> perfectly standard-conforming, which caused a lot of really impressed
> and positive commentary -- for about 8 hours, when they updated it, and
> the MS tools screwed it totally up forever...
>
> When I wrote that novices should be aware of the (intentional or not)
> Visual Studio attempts to trap the user in the Microsoft world, I did
> not expect any discussion about that, because it is so well known and so
> obvious to anyone experienced. So I did not give any examples. But OK,
> now's the time.
>
> Let's create a console project in Visual C++ Express 10.0.
>
> We (you) are the teacher or lab assistant, providing instructions to a
> novice. You want to /avoid/ that the novice ends up with Visual Studio's
> automatically generated console program "starter code". Because that
> starter code is not only Microsoft specific but teaches extreme wrongness.
>
> <code>
> // first_program_ever.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console
> application.
> //
>
> #include "stdafx.h"
>
> int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
> {
>         return 0;
>
> }
>
> </code>
>
> Here the comment at the top is wrong, it's not the "entry point" but
> rather the "startup function" (one of the most infamous Microsoft
> documentation bugs, still there as far as I know, describes the WinMain
> startup function signature as the signature of a program's entry point).
>
> The "stdafx.h" header is not a standard header. It is a header used for
> Visual C++ precompiled header technology. Which changes the semantics
> such that *standard code* fails to compile, with baffling (to the
> novice) "end of file" error messages. There is no advantage to
> precompiled headers for a little console program, but lots of
> disadvantages, including the non-standard semantics. I.e., when we
> discount colossal incompetence as an explanation, it's an attempt to
> trap the user in Microsoft-land.
>
> "_tmain" is not a standard startup function name. The standard name is
> "main". "_tmain" is in support of Windows 9x. Conceivably whoever
> maintained this just forgot about stopping to use that thing after 2001,
> when the Layer for Unicode was introduced to deal with the lack of
> Unicode support in Windows 9x. But would anyone really believe that they
> forgot about that for 10 years? I don't.
>
> Similarly, "_TCHAR" in the argument list is non-standard, and is solely
> in support of Windows 9x.
>
> Finally, the "return 0;" is unnecessary, but it is the only thing here
> that is not an attempt to unnecessarily trap the user in Microsoft land.
>
> To avoid that entrapment, you have to provide step by step instructions
> like those below, ordering the novice to do things in an apparently (to
> the novice) needlessly and senselessly complicated way -- which as I see
> it, of course is by design, an attempt to trap in Microsoft world.
>
>    Step 1.
>    Run Visual C++ Express by clicking its icon.
>
> In Windows 7 one way I can do this is by typing "visual" in the Start
> menu, and selecting the (on my machine) second choice.
>
>    Step 2.
>    Click "New Project", select Windows Console Project, fill in
>    details
>
> This can look like <url:http://i.imgur.com/4V1bE.png>.
>
>    Step 3.
>    Click OK in "New Project" and ***DO NOT*** click "Next" in the
>    "Application Wizard" that pops up. Instead click "Application
>    Settings". This can look like <url:http://i.imgur.com/9ifsE.png>.
>
>    Step 4.
>    In the "Application Settings" page, **FIRST** remove the tick
>    mark in the "Precompiled Header" box. **THEN** place a tick mark
>    in the "Empty Project" box. Doing this the opposite order won't
>    work.
>
> Now you might wonder, at version 10.0 of Visual Studio, as of 2011, is
> it likely that there is still such an idiotic bug in one of the most
> often used dialogs? Well yes, it is IMHO likely, that it is there *by
> design*. That Microsoft rather heavy-handed steers the user towards
> using "Precompiled header" at least, which changes the semantics of
> ordinary C++ code so that it is no longer standard conforming (wrt.
> header inclusion), but instead Microsoft specific, and for standard code
> yields baffling error messages about encountering end-of-file.
>
>    Step 5.
>    Click Finish, right click the Source folder in the project, and add
>    an a new file (you can call it "main.cpp", or anything).
>
> That's a pretty awkward procedure just to avoid the entrapments!

I've also had to turn of unicode to get the standard libraries to be
supplied. You also have to do some magic to avoid the "security"
warnings for certain standard C functions like strcpy(). But of course
C++ programmers shouldn't be using strcpy()...

> And so it goes, e.g. for COM programming where instead of associating
> classes with UUIDs via standard C++ traits or even just a macro namer
> thing, a non-standard language extension is used. This language
> extension serves no purpose in C, where it would just as well be done
> via macros, and in C++ it has no advantages compared to a traits class.
> It is solely a device to trap the user in Microsoft land.
>
> And so on.
>
> All of this *can* in principle be avoided, and that's what I wrote.
>
> But it is very much necessary to be aware of it.

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

#11867

On Nov 27, 11:55 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I've also had to turn of unicode to get the standard libraries to be
> supplied. You also have to do some magic to avoid the "security"
> warnings for certain standard C functions like strcpy(). But of course
> C++ programmers shouldn't be using strcpy()...

It shows this warning also when using std::copy().

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

#11817

On 11/24/2011 1:42 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

Do you need basic C++ or C++ with GUI controls?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web