Help! I am looking to download an evaluation version of Microsoft Visual
Studio 6.0 to practice some C++ programming or alternatively a similar
program which is easy to use and learn basic C++ on. Can anyone point me in
the right direction please?
--

..... and then he stuck a G.I. Joe up his ass!

"Goonigooguu" <hemal_patelREMOVE@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bg4dmi$c6n$1@hercules.btinternet.com...[color=blue]
>
> Help! I am looking to download an evaluation version of Microsoft Visual
> Studio 6.0 to practice some C++ programming or alternatively a similar
> program which is easy to use and learn basic C++ on. Can anyone point me[/color]
in[color=blue]
> the right direction please?[/color]

There is no such thing. You could download a complete version of gcc (a much
better C++ compiler than Visual Studio 6) for free from here www.cygwin.com.

john

"John Harrison" <john_andronicus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg528n$ku0bk$1@ID-196037.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
>
> "Goonigooguu" <hemal_patelREMOVE@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:bg4dmi$c6n$1@hercules.btinternet.com...[color=green]
> >
> > Help! I am looking to download an evaluation version of Microsoft Visual
> > Studio 6.0 to practice some C++ programming or alternatively a similar
> > program which is easy to use and learn basic C++ on. Can anyone point me[/color]
> in[color=green]
> > the right direction please?[/color]
>
> There is no such thing. You could download a complete version of gcc (a[/color]
much[color=blue]
> better C++ compiler than Visual Studio 6) for free from here[/color]
www.cygwin.com.[color=blue]
>
> john
>
>[/color]

or get a free alternative,dev-c++, which uses the MingW compiler, a windows
port of gcc for a more 'friendly' environment for windows. comes with
windows headers too, allowing you to program win32 apps.

dev-c++: http://www.bloodshed.net/dev/devcpp.html

slick_shoes

Dev-C++ is definitely something you should check out. The fact that it comes
with an IDE is great. GCC (MinGW) is an excellent compiler.

Another possibility is Digital Mars which I currently use for Win32
(windows) stuff:
http://www.digitalmars.com

If you want another old-school compiler, like Digital Mars (which was
Symantec), get the free Borland compiler. Note that it does not come with an
IDE:
http://www.borland.com

IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment. It is also sometimes
called an IDDE, when appropriate, for Integrated Development and Debugging
Environment. Most good IDE's have syntax highlighting for special keywords
and code completion.

If you choose a compiler that has no IDE or don't care to use their's, you
can always try SourceEdit: http://www.sourceedit.com

Good luck!

--

Regards,
Greg P.

Golden Rule of Open Source Programming:
"Don't whine about something unless you plan to implement it yourself"

The free Borland 5.5 compilor is not a quick download, you have to
follow these instuctions to install it:
http://csjava.occ.cccd.edu/~gilberts/bcc55.html
VIDE is a good IDE to use with the Borland 5.5 compiler. Its supposed
to work just by typing in the dictory path c:\Borland\bcc55 into the
options>VIDE dialog, but I havent been able to get it to work.

Victor- Im just starting out in programming and so still qualify as a
computer dummy. So just because I didnt get it to work doesnt mean it
doesnt work (the problem might be with my comp). Lets make clear that
Borland C++ 5.5 is a very good compiler that follows ANSI standards
closer than MS visual C++ (which doesnt even follow the current ANSI
standard). I dont imagine you would want to use this compiler with the
default command line interface, so getting an IDE and a debugger to
work with this compiler is neccesary for normal use. Heres a link
where you can download VIDE and theres a link at the bottom of the
page that gives instructions on how to set it up with Borland C++ 5.5:
http://www.objectcentral.com/vide.htm[color=blue]
>
> If you "haven't been able to get it to work", how can it be
> "a good IDE to use with the Borland 5.5. compiler"? In my book
> inability to make something to work with something else is
> a BAD THING(tm).
>
> Victor[/color]

On 29 Jul 2003 17:44:14 -0700, naoscapitan@yahoo.com (Arquebus257WeaMag) wrote:
[color=blue]
>Lets make clear that
>Borland C++ 5.5 is a very good compiler that follows ANSI standards[/color]

That is incorrect.

[color=blue]
>closer than MS visual C++ (which doesnt even follow the current ANSI
>standard).[/color]

That is incorrect.

[color=blue]
>I dont imagine you would want to use this compiler with the
>default command line interface[/color]

That is incorrect.

[color=blue]
>so getting an IDE and a debugger to
>work with this compiler is neccesary for normal use.[/color]

I suggest Dev++ IDE with MingW g++ compiler, both free.

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote in message
news:3f271603.242898953@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Lets make clear that
> >Borland C++ 5.5 is a very good compiler that follows ANSI standards[/color]
>
> That is incorrect.[/color]
How so? I have used both MSVC and Borland (since early on) and noticed BCC
holding truer to the ANSI standard than VC (which requires some code
augmentation). From what I've heard, VC 7.1 is starting to fix this.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >I dont imagine you would want to use this compiler with the
> >default command line interface[/color]
>
> That is incorrect.[/color]
I agree with you on this. I enjoy using the console for compiling rather
than hitting some build button. But I'm also old-school.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >so getting an IDE and a debugger to
> >work with this compiler is neccesary for normal use.[/color]
>
> I suggest Dev++ IDE with MingW g++ compiler, both free.[/color]
I suggest this as well. GCC, IMHO, is much better than either bcc or msvc.
Either that or I am just too used to it.

"Goonigooguu" <hemal_patelREMOVE@btconnect.com> wrote...[color=blue]
> Thanks all. Bloodsheds Dev-C++ works just fine but I do have other[/color]
question.[color=blue]
> Usually is start my main() as follows without a return:
>
> void main()
> {
> //code body
> }
>
> This causes a problem with Dev-C++ and I have to use:
> int main()
> {
> //code body
> system("PAUSE")
> return 0;
> }
>
> Is this a problem or normal. Please explain in laymans terms. Thanks.[/color]

In layman's terms, 'void main' is non-standard. If you want to write
_correct_ C++, you should use 'int main'. "return 0;" is unnecessary
from the main function; it will return 0 by default. Some compilers
have a problem with that. It's up to you to decide to use those
compilers and to put up with their non-compliance.

Dev-C++ causes the executable window to close before you can see the
results. That is why you need to use 'system("PAUSE")', which is not
guaranteed to work on all systems anyway. It is up to you to use the
tools that you've chosen in the way that helps you do your work. It
has nothing to do with the language.

Victor

Thankx

--

..... and then he stuck a G.I. Joe up his ass!


"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@attAbi.com> wrote in message
news:vifpv7ipq1lcd3@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
> "Goonigooguu" <hemal_patelREMOVE@btconnect.com> wrote...[color=green]
> > Thanks all. Bloodsheds Dev-C++ works just fine but I do have other[/color]
> question.[color=green]
> > Usually is start my main() as follows without a return:
> >
> > void main()
> > {
> > //code body
> > }
> >
> > This causes a problem with Dev-C++ and I have to use:
> > int main()
> > {
> > //code body
> > system("PAUSE")
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Is this a problem or normal. Please explain in laymans terms. Thanks.[/color]
>
> In layman's terms, 'void main' is non-standard. If you want to write
> _correct_ C++, you should use 'int main'. "return 0;" is unnecessary
> from the main function; it will return 0 by default. Some compilers
> have a problem with that. It's up to you to decide to use those
> compilers and to put up with their non-compliance.
>
> Dev-C++ causes the executable window to close before you can see the
> results. That is why you need to use 'system("PAUSE")', which is not
> guaranteed to work on all systems anyway. It is up to you to use the
> tools that you've chosen in the way that helps you do your work. It
> has nothing to do with the language.
>
> Victor
>
>[/color]

Goonigooguu wrote:[color=blue]
> Thanks all. Bloodsheds Dev-C++ works just fine but I do have other question.
> Usually is start my main() as follows without a return:[/color]
1. Don't top-post. Replies are either interspersed or appended
at the bottom.
[color=blue]
> void main()
> {
> //code body
> }
>
> This causes a problem with Dev-C++ and I have to use:
> int main()
> {
> //code body
> system("PAUSE")
> return 0;
> }
>
> Is this a problem or normal. Please explain in laymans terms. Thanks.[/color]
As stated many times in this newsgroup and news:comp.lang.c,
the main() function returns an int. Always. No exception.
Anything else provokes undefined behavior. As to what normal
is, that is a misleading term.

The correct form for a minimalist C++ program is:
int main()
{
}

According to the standard, the main() function is the only
function that has a default return value. Constructors
are special functions that don't return values. Better
form for the main function is:
int main(void) // or (int, char **)
{
return EXIT_SUCCESS; // or EXIT_FAILURE
}

Read the FAQ and welcome.txt via the links below.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

Thomas Matthews wrote:
[color=blue]
>The correct form for a minimalist C++ program is:
>int main()
>{
>}
>
>According to the standard, the main() function is the only
>function that has a default return value. Constructors
>are special functions that don't return values. Better
>form for the main function is:
>int main(void) // or (int, char **)[/color]

The practice of using a 'void' argument list is meaningful in
C (do you know _why_ it is meaningful in C?).

It's not meaningful in C++.

It's not a good idea to use meaningless constructs, and so
this form is absolutely not "better" in C++: it is inferior.


[color=blue]
>{
> return EXIT_SUCCESS; // or EXIT_FAILURE
>}[/color]

This can be a good idea. Note: EXIT_SUCCESS is not predefined
in C++. It is defined by various header files.