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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #43189 > unrolled thread

The portability sacred cow

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

Contents

  The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-20 23:14 +0200
    Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-20 23:34 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-20 21:20 -0700
        Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-21 04:35 +0000
        Re: The portability sacred cow Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-21 05:10 +0000
          Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-21 05:31 +0000
          Re: The portability sacred cow <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2014-04-20 23:50 -0700
    Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-20 23:39 +0200
    Re: The portability sacred cow <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2014-04-20 23:37 -0700
      Re: The portability sacred cow Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-21 20:25 +1200
    Re: The portability sacred cow glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-21 07:10 +0000
    Re: The portability sacred cow Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-21 20:32 +1200
    Re: The portability sacred cow David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-21 16:46 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2014-04-21 10:04 -0700
        Re: The portability sacred cow David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-21 21:02 +0200
    Re: The portability sacred cow Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 02:52 -0700
      Re: The portability sacred cow Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-22 23:18 +1200
        Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-22 11:49 +0000
      Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-22 14:48 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 14:58 +0100
        Re: The portability sacred cow Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 07:37 -0700
      Re: The portability sacred cow luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 21:52 -0700
    Re: The portability sacred cow Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-04-22 16:58 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-22 17:24 +0200
        Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-22 17:25 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 19:11 +0100
    Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-22 21:59 +0200
      Re: The portability sacred cow Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 14:02 -0700
        Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-23 01:04 +0200
          Re: The portability sacred cow <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2014-04-22 17:52 -0700
            Re: The portability sacred cow <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2014-04-22 19:15 -0700
        Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-23 01:10 +0200
        Re: The portability sacred cow Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-04-23 09:53 +0200
          Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-25 02:21 +0000
            Re: The portability sacred cow JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-04-25 06:36 +0000
              Re: The portability sacred cow Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 14:02 +0200
              Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-25 18:17 +0000
                Re: The portability sacred cow Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-25 18:27 +0000
                  Re: The portability sacred cow Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-25 21:57 -0700
                    Re: The portability sacred cow Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-26 00:02 -0500
                    Re: The portability sacred cow Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 11:35 +0200
                  Re: The portability sacred cow JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-04-26 06:04 +0000
                Re: The portability sacred cow jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-25 23:08 +0200
                  Re: The portability sacred cow glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-25 21:52 +0000
            Re: The portability sacred cow Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-04-25 11:27 +0200
              Re: The portability sacred cow Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 14:03 +0200
                Re: The portability sacred cow gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-25 18:18 +0000
                Re: The portability sacred cow "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 20:04 -0400
              Re: The portability sacred cow Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-25 06:05 -0700
                Re: The portability sacred cow Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-04-25 17:43 +0200
                  Re: The portability sacred cow Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 10:48 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#43590

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:27:53 PM UTC+1, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2014-04-25, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You can call Windows API's when developing with MinGW.
>> 
>> The C library that is used is Microsoft's; you can make programs that can ship
>> as nothing but a single .exe file, and run on people's Windows boxes.
>> 
>> What is lacking is a resource compiler for defining dialogs and strings.
>> Or is it?
>>
>> Googling slightly: http://www.mingw.org/wiki/MS_resource_compiler
>>
> One of the features of programming is that most programming tools,
> applications, interfaces etc have a core functionality which is interesting
> from a computer science perspective, and easy enough for someone to program
> up in their spare time. That then gets attached to some sort of user 
> interface, to create something which, in a formal sense, offers a lot
> of functionality.
>
> However the soft problems are easily underestimated. If you've got to
> download something from the internet, install to a specific directory,
> set a path in some sort of configuration file, only to receive a message
> that some bit somewhere is misconfigured, then it can easily take all
> day to install the tool, and it's not usable in a commercial or consumer
> setting (academic programmers and hobbyists can still use it, but even 
> then, only if particularly committed).
>
> It's hard to make software really nice to use, integrated with the
> environment but not falling over when something about that environment is
> not as expected, 

This is total nonsense. It can be, should be, IS .. easy. A programmer
who installs something that's needs an ENV set and cant do it is
probably out of his depth anyway. Any consumer app for non techies that
requires that needs its creating team overhauled.

It sounds to me like you're used to zero testing (user and integration
tests) and somehow conflate your poor processes with the rest of SW
development.

-- 
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c

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

#43589

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> JohnF  <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.
>>>> It's what people follow.
>>>
>>>Off-topic, but what are the pluses/minuses of
>>>the mingw compiler
>>>  http://www.mingw.org/
>>>for C programs under windows?
>>>And, while you're at it, also compare and contrast
>>>the dos djgpp if you're familiar with it
>>>  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/
>>>And any other similar compiler.
>>
>> Those compilers are good if you've developed your code
>> with Unix/Linux/gcc and just want a quick port to Windows.
>> Like, for example, when they want to produce Windows versions
>> of things like AWK, GAWK, Perl, etc. Or things like cut, join,
>> paste, wc, etc, etc.
>>
>> But most people are not like us (so it says in The Great Gatsby).
>> They are coming at it from the other side - they are developing for,
>> by, and on Windows, so they want a compiler with Windows sensibilities.
>> The MS compilers are therefore their first (and basically only) choice.
> 
> You can call Windows API's when developing with MinGW.
> The C library that is used is Microsoft's; you can make programs that can
> ship as nothing but a single .exe file, and run on people's Windows boxes.
> What is lacking is a resource compiler for defining dialogs and strings.
> Or is it?
>   Googling slightly: http://www.mingw.org/wiki/MS_resource_compiler

Thanks Kenny, Kaz, et al. "Developed with unix/gcc and just want
a quick port to windows" is indeed what I want, and it sounds like
mingw is indeed a good choice for that purpose.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

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

#43582

Le 25/04/2014 20:17, Kenny McCormack a écrit :
> In article <ljcvom$mb4$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> JohnF  <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.
>>> It's what people follow.
>>
>> Off-topic, but what are the pluses/minuses of
>> the mingw compiler
>>   http://www.mingw.org/
>> for C programs under windows?
>> And, while you're at it, also compare and contrast
>> the dos djgpp if you're familiar with it
>>   http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/
>> And any other similar compiler.
>
> Those compilers are good if you've developed your code with Unix/Linux/gcc
> and just want a quick port to Windows.  Like, for example, when they want
> to produce Windows versions of things like AWK, GAWK, Perl, etc.  Or things
> like cut, join, paste, wc, etc, etc.
>
lcc-win is another compiler that shouldn't be mentioned in this group. 
It supports windows of course, it is written in C and it can produce 
double-clickable applications under the windows OS.

I have been flamed so often in this newsgroup for speaking about 
lcc-win, that I will never do it again.

I agree that my compiler should be boycotted. It is NGNU (not gnu), nor 
is it GPLed and obeys nobody actually. This is not good in this 
newsgroup :-)

You should be in some kind of group, trying to get influence, control 
whatever. And a NICO (non identified compiling object) is looked upon 
with well grounded suspicion I agree. My compiler lcc-win should not be 
mentioned in this community of C lovers.

Besides its heretical  attitude, my compiler supports operator 
overloading, and many improvements (most of them from C++) that make 
people that respect standards go nuts.

Sad really, but yes, the boycott is well justified, even from  people 
like "kenny mccormack" that was kind of critical some time ago.

Yes, times pass but the boycott against lcc-win remains, I agree that 
there is no other choice for the C community, and I repeat my promise:

I will not speak about lcc-win again.

One of the worst sins is that it is not msvc compatible since it 
supports C99. I remember several discussions about that here.

Of course, even worst is the fact that uses extra precision floats with 
132 significant digits. It shouldn't be even mentioned.

All those sins...  there is no redemption possible. Kiki will go really 
nuts and will swallow his killfile :-)

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

#43585

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:

(snip)

> lcc-win is another compiler that shouldn't be mentioned in this group. 
> It supports windows of course, it is written in C and it can produce 
> double-clickable applications under the windows OS.

I don't know about mentioning the compiler, but the book that goes
with it is pretty good.  So, without mentioning any compiler:

  "A Retargetable C Compiler: Design and Implementation. Addison-Wesley.
  ISBN 0-8053-1670-1."

is a good book on understanding how C compilers work, and how
to write one. 

-- glen

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

#43547

On 04/25/14 04:21, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Like it or not, MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.  What they
> do (or don't do) matters.  A lot.  It's what people follow.

I most certainly don't, I'm using pgcc, icc, gcc, xlc and clang on a number of
platforms, all of which support C99 (or will accept a bug-report if some part is
missing). Your 800 pound gorilla looks like some gray-haired, asthmatic animal,
unable to catch up with the herd, to me.

Thomas

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

#43550

Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> writes:

> On 04/25/14 04:21, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> Like it or not, MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.  What they
>> do (or don't do) matters.  A lot.  It's what people follow.
>
> I most certainly don't, I'm using pgcc, icc, gcc, xlc and clang on a
> number of

That's nice. But so what?

> platforms, all of which support C99 (or will accept a bug-report if some part is
> missing). Your 800 pound gorilla looks like some gray-haired, asthmatic animal,
> unable to catch up with the herd, to me.

Yes. Yes. And? No one cares. The majority use something else.

>
> Thomas

-- 
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c

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

#43576

In article <87lhut4nw5.fsf@gmail.com>, Richard  <rgrdev_@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> writes:
>
>> On 04/25/14 04:21, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> Like it or not, MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.  What they
>>> do (or don't do) matters.  A lot.  It's what people follow.
>>
>> I most certainly don't, I'm using pgcc, icc, gcc, xlc and clang on a
>> number of
>
>That's nice. But so what?

Indeed.

>> platforms, all of which support C99 (or will accept a bug-report if some part is
>> missing). Your 800 pound gorilla looks like some gray-haired, asthmatic animal,
>> unable to catch up with the herd, to me.
>
>Yes. Yes. And? No one cares. The majority use something else.

Very well put.

-- 
Atheism:
    It's like being the only sober person in the car, and nobody will let you drive.

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

#43622

"Richard" <rgrdev_@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87lhut4nw5.fsf@gmail.com...

comp.compilers

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

#43555

On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:27:29 AM UTC+1, Thomas Jahns wrote:
> On 04/25/14 04:21, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 
> > Like it or not, MS's compilers are like the 800 pound gorilla.  What they
> > do (or don't do) matters.  A lot.  It's what people follow.
> 
> I most certainly don't, I'm using pgcc, icc, gcc, xlc and clang on a number of
> platforms, all of which support C99 (or will accept a bug-report if some part is
> missing). Your 800 pound gorilla looks like some gray-haired, asthmatic animal,
> unable to catch up with the herd, to me.
> 
I don't know where most of my code will have to run. but it's quite likely that someone
will want to run it through Visual Studio at some point.
Currently my main machine is an Apple Mac.

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

#43564

On 04/25/14 15:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> I don't know where most of my code will have to run. but it's quite likely that someone
> will want to run it through Visual Studio at some point.

The Intel compiler comes with VS integration, so wanting to use VS doesn't mean
one is tied to msvc.

Thomas

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

#43574

Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> writes:
> On 04/25/14 15:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> I don't know where most of my code will have to run. but it's quite
>> likely that someone will want to run it through Visual Studio at some
>> point.
>
> The Intel compiler comes with VS integration, so wanting to use VS
> doesn't mean one is tied to msvc.

True, but there are other reasons one might be tied to MSVC.

I doubt that most programmers really have the luxury of choosing which
compiler will be used to compile their code.  I've used Visual Studio
myself at a previous job; picking a different compiler was not an
option.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web