New to C: Getting Application error when running program

[Mike Polinske]

I am new to the C programming language but have been programming in
Cobol for over 10 years. When I compile the following code, it
compiles clean but I get an application error both under Windows XP and
Win2K.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>

char title[] = "Year End Report";

char work_buffer[51];

main()
{
strcpy(work_buf fer,title);
strncenter(work _buffer,50);
printf("%s\n",w ork_buffer);
strljust(work_b uffer);
printf("%s\n",w ork_buffer);
strrjust(work_b uffer);
printf("%s\n",w ork_buffer);
}

/* Left justify a string */
strljust(str)
char *str;
{
int len;

len = strlen(str);
while (isspace(str) != 0) {
memmove (str,str + 1,len);
str[len] = ' ';
}
}

/* Reverse a string */
strrev(str)
char *str;
{
char ch;
char *end;

end = str + strlen(str) - 1;

while (str < end) {
ch = *end;
*end-- = *str;
*str++ = ch;
}
}

/* Right justify a string */
strrjust(str)
char *str;
{
strrev(str);
strljust(str);
strrev(str);
}

/* Truncate to last non-white character */
strtrunc(str)
char *str;
{
char *end;

end = str + strlen(str) - 1;

while ((*str != 0) && (isspace (*end) != 0)) {
*end-- = 0;
}
}

/* Pad a string for len with spaces */
struntrunc(str, len)
char *str;
int len;
{
while (strlen (str) < len) {
strcat (str,' ');
}
}

/* Center a string */
strcenter(str)
char *str;
{
strncenter (str, strlen(str));
}

/* Center a string within width */
strncenter(str, width)
char *str;
int width;
{
int non_blank_len, padding;

strtrunc (str);
strrev (str);
strtrunc (str);
non_blank_len = strlen (str);

padding = (width - non_blank_len) / 2;

struntrunc (str,padding);
strrev (str);
struntrunc (str,width);
}

It seems to be blowing up in the struntrunc function, but I can't
understand why. I know that this program is trying to take a string,
center it, left justify it and right justify it.

Any ideas on how I can get this program to run?

I am using Open Watcom C/C++ 1.4 but I had the same problem when I
tried it with OW 1.3.

Thanks

[Michal Necasek]

Roald Ribe wrote:

Yes but it is (was?) too limited for larger projects, unlike Java
and possibly C#.
But isn't that the whole point? That a learning language should be
simple? Because otherwise, there's really no reason not to start with
C++. If anything, it's less limited for large projects than Java or C#.
I disagree. In object oriented design and thinking everything is an
object.
But everything isn't an object. Or, if you make it one, all you'll get
is lots of extra complexity and a big loss of performance. Do you really
think every character and integer should be an object?
Expressions, flowcontrol and arrays is mostly the same in object oriented
and procedural laguages, just about everything else is different.
I believe it's very helpful to learn to walk before trying to run. Is
a Formula 1 racecar really the best vehicle for beginning drivers? Or
are they actually more likely to get hurt?
All the "object oriented cruft" (he he) is only that if your only goal
is efficiency in executables, and "real" programming is assembly.

While anything is doable in assembly, it's obviously not a good
language to develop in because the code is difficult to modify and
nonportable; besides, writing better assembly than a good compiler can
generate is hard.

But all that is besides the point. We're talking about languages
suitable for *learning* programming, not for developing large applications.
Michal

[Antonio Contreras]

Roald Ribe wrote:

Michal Necasek wrote:

Roald Ribe wrote:

I do not think that either C or C++ are good learning
(first) languages. Go with Java or C# as a first language
since thar will be (IMO) much more productive (easy to learn),
and learn C/C++ later when/if the need arises.

I agree that C (let alone C++) is not easy for people who don't know
any programming. Heck, even experienced programmers sometimes have
trouble sorting out the finer points of pointer usage. However, I highly
doubt that Java and C# are any better.

Well, at least they do not have pointers ;-)

I suppose you mean explicit pointers. I don't know a word about C#, but
in Java every variable, excepting those of primitive types, *is a
pointer*. It took me a while to realize it when they where teaching me
OOP in Java. Once I realized it, everything became obvious. That's what
I don't like about Java, it hides some things from you, and that's the
reason I've come to like C so much.

The first 'serious' programming
language I learned was Pascal, and in retrospect I can say that it was
an excellent language for learning (not surprising, as that's exactly
what it was designed for).

Agreed.

<snip to EOF>

[Roald Ribe]

Antonio Contreras wrote:

I suppose you mean explicit pointers. I don't know a word about C#, but
in Java every variable, excepting those of primitive types, *is a
pointer*. It took me a while to realize it when they where teaching me
OOP in Java. Once I realized it, everything became obvious. That's what
I don't like about Java, it hides some things from you, and that's the
reason I've come to like C so much.

No they are not pointers, they are "handles to objects". You can
think of it as pointers if you like, but they are not the same.
Yes Java hides things from you (even what kind of CPU the program
is running on). That is why the programs are easier to make and
port from system to system. And the Java language is more percisely
defined, so the compiler can catch more errors.
I see Java and C as two different tools, each best for different
kinds of tasks.

Roald