microsoft visual c++

[paz]

Hi,

Does anybody know how to start new C project with microsoft visual c++?

I've created a file, but Tools-Run is inActive.

How can I make it Active?

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Richard Heathfield writes:

Now that I've said all that, I must apologise to my fellow regular
contributors to this group for replying to an off-topic question with
an answer that is not a redirection to another group. I hope,
however, that they will reflect upon the possibility that "paz" may
one day become an world-class expert in ISO C programming as a result
of not being sent off to a Microsoft group...

Oh really. The way you bash anyone over the head for mentioning
anything platform-specific, you could at least follow your own rules.
Your antipathy for Microsoft is off-topic here, so even your apology
is off-topic by your rules.

Supposedly this platform-post-bashing is supposed to keep this group
on-topic and get rid of noise. Yet the current biggest noise generator
in this group is the subthread *you* started about on-topicness. 140+
messages in "variable allocated from stack/bss ??" and still going
strong. Furthermore, you started it in such a way as to guarantee that
there would be more postings which by your own rules are off-topic: you
asked for chapter and verse about a unix-specific reply, and followed up
with criticizing a brief and useful (and incomplete) reply.

In short, your "topicness police" posting was simply successful
trolling. And you went on with your trolling when the respondent gave -
entirely predictably - a defense of his own reply. All of which is
quite common for topicness postings. (Including this one, I'm sure.
But I'm getting fed up sometimes. At least I've changed the subject so
people can killfile this thread.)

Now that you've felt the irresistible urge to give a reply which even
you recognize as off-topic though, maybe you can understand that it's
actually possible for such replies to have a place here. What you
haven't quite got is that it's also possible for such a reply to be
useful and to the point, without going on and on about topicness.
For example, instead of your trolling post you could have said something
like:

Note that stack and bss are platform-specific (typically Unix), so
don't depend on them in a portable program. As such it's also off-
topic for this newsgroup, ask on comp.unix.progr ammer if you want to
know more about them.

There. Useful information (assuming I got the Unix part right, which
I'm not sure of anymore:-), directs further discussion elsewhere like
your dear topicness postings are presumably intended to, and does not
attack anything or in other ways troll for further off-topic discussion.

--
Hallvard

[jacob navia]

Hallvard B Furuseth a écrit :

Richard Heathfield writes:

>>Now that I've said all that, I must apologise to my fellow regular
contributor s to this group for replying to an off-topic question with
an answer that is not a redirection to another group. I hope,
however, that they will reflect upon the possibility that "paz" may
one day become an world-class expert in ISO C programming as a result
of not being sent off to a Microsoft group...

Oh really. The way you bash anyone over the head for mentioning
anything platform-specific, you could at least follow your own rules.
Your antipathy for Microsoft is off-topic here, so even your apology
is off-topic by your rules.

Exactly

>
Supposedly this platform-post-bashing is supposed to keep this group
on-topic and get rid of noise. Yet the current biggest noise generator
in this group is the subthread *you* started about on-topicness. 140+
messages in "variable allocated from stack/bss ??" and still going
strong. Furthermore, you started it in such a way as to guarantee that
there would be more postings which by your own rules are off-topic: you
asked for chapter and verse about a unix-specific reply, and followed up
with criticizing a brief and useful (and incomplete) reply.

I agree it was incomplete but I didn't expect such a reaction.

In short, your "topicness police" posting was simply successful
trolling. And you went on with your trolling when the respondent gave -
entirely predictably - a defense of his own reply. All of which is
quite common for topicness postings. (Including this one, I'm sure.
But I'm getting fed up sometimes. At least I've changed the subject so
people can killfile this thread.)

Now that you've felt the irresistible urge to give a reply which even
you recognize as off-topic though, maybe you can understand that it's
actually possible for such replies to have a place here. What you
haven't quite got is that it's also possible for such a reply to be
useful and to the point, without going on and on about topicness.
For example, instead of your trolling post you could have said something
like:

Note that stack and bss are platform-specific (typically Unix), so
don't depend on them in a portable program. As such it's also off-
topic for this newsgroup, ask on comp.unix.progr ammer if you want to
know more about them.

There. Useful information (assuming I got the Unix part right, which
I'm not sure of anymore:-), directs further discussion elsewhere like
your dear topicness postings are presumably intended to, and does not
attack anything or in other ways troll for further off-topic discussion.

This is because I am not in heathfield's Accepted Posted Club (APC)

I have the feeling that I can say "The sun rises in the east" and
heathfield will start with "This is planet specific. In planet XYZ
the sun doesn't rise at all since the planet doesn't rotate"

The best was the answer from somebody that said the the C language
did not even assume a machine since there could be a human doing the
calculations instead of a compiler...

Of course that is true, and the sun doesn't always rise in the east,
specially in planet XYZ. But let's not start again :-)

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

<snip>

This is because I am not in heathfield's Accepted Posted Club (APC)

You might choose to think so, but in fact I generally pay more attention to
what is said than to who says it. It is, however, difficult not to notice
when a particular poster gives consistently erroneous information.

I have the feeling that I can say "The sun rises in the east" and
heathfield will start with "This is planet specific. In planet XYZ
the sun doesn't rise at all since the planet doesn't rotate"

Precisely. On Venus, Earth's closest planetary neighbour, the sun rises in
the West. Any planet that is gravitationally locked to its star will not
experience sunrise at all. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <1t************ ********@bt.com >,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>jacob navia said:

<snip>

>This is because I am not in heathfield's Accepted Posted Club (APC)

You might choose to think so, but in fact I generally pay more attention to
what is said than to who says it. It is, however, difficult not to notice
when a particular poster gives consistently erroneous information.

You also lie as well as you breathe.

I think that's really all anyone needs to know about Heathfield.

[Yevgen Muntyan]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>>Now that I've said all that, I must apologise to my fellow regular
contributor s to this group for replying to an off-topic question with
an answer that is not a redirection to another group. I hope,
however, that they will reflect upon the possibility that "paz" may
one day become an world-class expert in ISO C programming as a result
of not being sent off to a Microsoft group...

[snipped stuff about off-topic post by Richard and his attitude about
off-topic posts by others]

>

Here Richard replied to post by Jacob Navia (naturally, Richard
Heathfield could not leave last word to Jacob), but didn't say a word
about this very post which Jacob posted a reply to. Still, it would
be interesting to hear what Richard thinks about it. He feels it's okay
to drag in Venus even though he could use Earth for nitpicking (you
know, sun almost never raises in the East on almost whole Earth
surface), but he doesn't feel it needed to address valid concerns about
his "C&V", "Wrong", and similar nice laconic replies to anything
off-topic.

Richard, could you indeed comment on this? Or on how a link to
some web page is as good as directing OP to an appropriate newsgroup
so that zillions of experts may correct possible mistakes for the
peace on Earth? The latter is a question to kind wise Keith Thompson
too, by the way.

Really, guys, you want to kill off-topic posts, fine. You keep
repeating stuff about appropriate forums and "experts", fine. But
be consistent! When you are fighting Jacob Navia, it's well understood:
you don't like each other, you offend each other, normal relationships.
But be consistent at least when Jacob Navia is not involved.

I guess it's normal for anyone to give an off-topic reply to an
off-topic post sometimes, off-topicness is not something unusual for me
at least. But let's not pretend we are cool then?

Best regards,
Yevgen

P.S. Jacob, if you agree or disagree, please do not reply. You know
the "Do not feed..." thing? Not sure who would feed who, but it would do
no good in any case.

[jacob navia]

Yevgen Muntyan a écrit :

P.S. Jacob, if you agree or disagree, please do not reply. You know
the "Do not feed..." thing? Not sure who would feed who, but it would do
no good in any case.

:-)

[Richard Heathfield]

Yevgen Muntyan said:

<snip>

Here Richard replied to post by Jacob Navia (naturally, Richard
Heathfield could not leave last word to Jacob),

I'm happy for Mr Navia to have the last word, if it's a *correct* last word.

Richard, could you indeed comment on this? Or on how a link to
some web page is as good as directing OP to an appropriate newsgroup
so that zillions of experts may correct possible mistakes for the
peace on Earth? The latter is a question to kind wise Keith Thompson
too, by the way.

I explained my reasons for recommending a Web page rather than a newsgroup
at the time I made the recommendation.

Really, guys, you want to kill off-topic posts, fine. You keep
repeating stuff about appropriate forums and "experts", fine. But
be consistent! When you are fighting Jacob Navia, it's well understood:
you don't like each other, you offend each other, normal relationships.

Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or disliking
Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of me. What I'm
interested in is people not being misled by incorrect information. That's
why I post corrections when I notice people making mistakes - and it's why
I apologise if I discover that I myself have given incorrect information.
It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

jacob navia writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth a écrit :

>(....) Furthermore, you started it in such a way as to guarantee
that there would be more postings which by your own rules are
off-topic: you asked for chapter and verse about a unix-specific
reply, and followed up with criticizing a brief and useful (and
incomplete) reply.

I agree it was incomplete but I didn't expect such a reaction.

Actually I hadn't noticed that you posted a reply too, I was referring
to "MQ"'s post and Richard's reply. Just how many obnoxious replies did
he post in that thread? Looking a bit more he had a direct "this is
off-topic" reply to the OP too, which provided no useful information
whatsoever - not even where he thought he the question should be taken
instead.

>(...) There. Useful information (assuming I got the Unix part
right, which I'm not sure of anymore:-), directs further discussion
elsewhere like your dear topicness postings are presumably intended
to, and does not attack anything or in other ways troll for further
off-topic discussion.

This is because I am not in heathfield's Accepted Posted Club (APC)

Me neither, and I would not post that myself. My point is that when
Richard feels the urge to post such messages, _he_ could post like that.
And when he's not responding to someone who as committed the horrible
offense of posting a helpful "off-topic" response, but instead is doing
that himself, he could prepend the actual answer to the question, of
course. Like he'd never do I'm sure, except apparently when the
alternative is to lead people towards Microsoft.

I have the feeling that I can say "The sun rises in the east" and
heathfield will start with "This is planet specific. In planet XYZ
the sun doesn't rise at all since the planet doesn't rotate"
(...)

--
Hallvard

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Richard Heathfield writes:

Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
information.

Then give correct information instead. I haven't browsed more than a
fraction of that thread, but the OP was clearly not thinking of "the ISO
C standard", just "C", there is no reason to assume the OP there learned
anything at all from your messages. He even had to ask in which way you
were being obnoxious just to understand your reply.

Your replies - other than the one to the OP - were directed towards the
respondents rather than the OP, so they were _not_ doing anything to
prevent him being "misled by incorrect information".

--
Hallvard

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <jb************ ********@bt.com >,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validbloviated:
....

>Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or disliking
Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of me. What I'm
interested in is people not being misled by incorrect information. That's
why I post corrections when I notice people making mistakes - and it's why
I apologise if I discover that I myself have given incorrect information.
It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes.

You lie like a rug.