Compiler

What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process and
function well enough for some time after I have learned the basics of C++?
I am considering a good Borland product, but which one?

David wrote:
[color=blue]
> What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process
> and function well enough for some time after I have learned the basics
> of C++?[/color]

That depends on the operating system you want to use for compilation and
the system where your target programm will run. However, GNU g++ is
available for a wide range of build and target platforms, so that could
be a good start. Newer versions are quite good wrt standard compliance.

Yes, I'm familiar with g++; but I am a sucker when it comes to packaging and
compilers. I like the bells and whistles.
I am using MS Windows on an Intel platform and that is my intended audience
right now, although I would like to port some code if it is good enough.

"Rolf Magnus" <ramagnus@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:c8kknj$a66$02$1@news.t-online.com...[color=blue]
> David wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process
> > and function well enough for some time after I have learned the basics
> > of C++?[/color]
>
> That depends on the operating system you want to use for compilation and
> the system where your target programm will run. However, GNU g++ is
> available for a wide range of build and target platforms, so that could
> be a good start. Newer versions are quite good wrt standard compliance.
>[/color]

David,

I learned C++ though VC++, it takes away a lot of the chores of
writing makefiles, etc., you can concentrate on the language side of
things. I've tried the Borland products, it might be I'm too VC++ centric,
but I found their interface a bit fiddly, like you have different keys for
each
short cut. Sorry, my fingers are hardwired right now... Also, VC++'s
debugger
is really cool. Oh that was VC++6, the 2003 .nET is entirely bollocks and
so is
the product too. Oh that language may not be the lingua pura and theres a
lot of bugs
and limitations, but you can get on quickly to learn the language.


Still, a GUI style approach will save you a lot of time, just punch in some
code
from the text book/web whatever, and get it to run. A lot better than in
the old days
with Cfront et al.

dave

"David" <bnaround2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:paOdnUXpoKZDXjDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process and
> function well enough for some time after I have learned the basics of C++?
> I am considering a good Borland product, but which one?
>
>[/color]

Dave Townsend wrote:[color=blue]
> David,
>
> I learned C++ though VC++, it takes away a lot of the chores of
> writing makefiles, etc., you can concentrate on the language side of
> things. I've tried the Borland products, it might be I'm too VC++
> centric, but I found their interface a bit fiddly, like you have
> different keys for each
> short cut. Sorry, my fingers are hardwired right now... Also, VC++'s
> debugger
> is really cool. Oh that was VC++6, the 2003 .nET is entirely
> bollocks and so is
> the product too. Oh that language may not be the lingua pura and
> theres a lot of bugs
> and limitations, but you can get on quickly to learn the language.
>[/color]

VC++ 2003 supports .Net, but does not in any way require you to use it. Its
standard C++ support is almost perfect, and much better than 6. It compiles
to excellently optimized native code. The debugger is also much better than
6.

- Pete
[color=blue]
>
> Still, a GUI style approach will save you a lot of time, just punch
> in some code
> from the text book/web whatever, and get it to run. A lot better
> than in the old days
> with Cfront et al.
>
> dave
>
> "David" <bnaround2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:paOdnUXpoKZDXjDdRVn-vA@comcast.com...[color=green]
>> What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning
>> process and function well enough for some time after I have learned
>> the basics of C++? I am considering a good Borland product, but
>> which one?[/color][/color]

David wrote:[color=blue]
> What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process
> and function well enough for some time after I have learned the
> basics of C++? I am considering a good Borland product, but which one?[/color]

For starters, I would suggest Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 for an IDE, using
this newer version of the compiler (free download):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/

If you want, the free compiler is also the best stand-alone command-line
compiler, comes with an implementation of the standard library, and you can
write Windows programs with it also.

- Pete

Petec wrote:[color=blue]
> David wrote:[color=green]
>> What's a good compiler that will take me through the learning process
>> and function well enough for some time after I have learned the
>> basics of C++? I am considering a good Borland product, but which
>> one?[/color]
>
> For starters, I would suggest Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 for an IDE,
> using this newer version of the compiler (free download):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/[/color]

I forgot to mention, just get the Standard edition, NOT the Pro or
Enterprise. The free compiler I linked to contains the important
Professional features (the better compiler).
FYI, VC++ 2003 Standard is ~$90.

- Pete
[color=blue]
>
> If you want, the free compiler is also the best stand-alone
> command-line compiler, comes with an implementation of the standard
> library, and you can write Windows programs with it also.
>
> - Pete[/color]