By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,784 Members | 3,274 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,784 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

C IDE Recommendations

P: n/a
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.

(Sorry if this is off topic, c.l.c is just about the language, correct?)
--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 28 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
70 Replies


P: n/a
ed
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:46:12 +0100
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?

I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I
want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.
Look into vim, http://www.vim.org/

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.s5h.net
just another unix hacker
To Chuck Norris, the cup isn't half full or half empty, but all
usually deadly.
Aug 28 '06 #2

P: n/a
ed wrote:
>
Look into vim, http://www.vim.org/
Hi Ed! Do you happen to have vim macros that do language-specific
bindings for things like keyword completion, filling parameter lists for
known library functions, or idiomatic code generation?

I love vim to death but whenever I see some of the things certain IDEs
can do, I find myself *wanting* those things.
Aug 28 '06 #3

P: n/a
ed wrote:
Look into vim, http://www.vim.org/
Thank-you, and to the person whom emailed me also. I'll try out some new
ones. Sorry for the off topic nature of this thread.
--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 28 '06 #4

P: n/a
ed wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:46:12 +0100
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?

I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I
want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.

Look into vim, http://www.vim.org/
That only addresses at most one of the OPs reasons.

A better option to address all of the OPs requirements is to download
the latest free version of MS Visual Studio from the MS web site. A look
at http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_IDEs might also be of interest.

Finally, this really is OT for this group since it is about tool chains
rather than C, and the best advice about IDEs for Windows will be found
on the Windows groups.
--
Flash Gordon
Aug 28 '06 #5

P: n/a
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:46:12 +0100, Jonathan Pritchard
<jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.

(Sorry if this is off topic, c.l.c is just about the language, correct?)
Correct. Don't do things you have to be sorry about.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Aug 28 '06 #6

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.

(Sorry if this is off topic, c.l.c is just about the language, correct?)
The IDE of the lcc-win32 compiler system features:

o Code completion (escape key)
o fields of structures appear automatically when you type
structureName.
or structureName->

Now, this happens even if you do it inside a comment or a character
string... but that is a small bug that I will correct ASAP... :-)
It has also:

o project management (automatic makefile generation)
o windowed debugger
o Where is this identifier USED? (Ctrl+F8)
o List of all functions in a file. Jump to any with a double click
o Software metrics: measure the complexity of your code
o Goto definition of any symbol.
o Spelling checker (like Word, it underlines misspelled identifiers).
This is the only IDE in the world that does this.
o Syntax checking when saving (mismatched parentheses, brackets,
or braces). It will tell you when the mismatched element started,
i.e. it will tell you where the badly closed braces OPENS.
o Utilities like diff, grep are built in.
o Regular expression search.

It has a bad press in this group, so it is not listed in the
clc wiki page.

Price:

Zero dollars and zero cents.

Download it from:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32.

Attention this is a C only IDE. No C++.
Compiler, linker and ressource editor/compiler included.
Aug 29 '06 #7

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone
recommend? I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion
and I guess I want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

The IDE of the lcc-win32 compiler system features:
.... snip ...
>
It has a bad press in this group, so it is not listed in the
clc wiki page.
The reason for the bad press is the plethora of non-standard
extensions which, as far as I can tell, cannot be firmly turned off
so as to compile only standard C. The IDE is quite good, but IDEs
in general are unnecessary baggage.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.netUSE maineline address!

Aug 29 '06 #8

P: n/a

There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this situation. Can lcc work like
turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?
Aug 30 '06 #9

P: n/a
CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
>>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone
recommend? I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion
and I guess I want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.
The IDE of the lcc-win32 compiler system features:
... snip ...
>It has a bad press in this group, so it is not listed in the
clc wiki page.

The reason for the bad press is the plethora of non-standard
extensions which, as far as I can tell, cannot be firmly turned off
so as to compile only standard C. The IDE is quite good, but IDEs
in general are unnecessary baggage.
Agreed. I use C, Clipper and Visual FoxPro on a daily basis. I do use
the IDE of VFP because it's convenient. For C I use edit.com or vi
(Unix) and for Clipper, edit.com. I have tried several IDE's but none
have been particularly compelling. I do miss WordStar from 20 years ago
or so.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Aug 30 '06 #10

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:

<snip lcc-win32>
It has a bad press in this group, so it is not listed in the
clc wiki page.
Actually it is up there under compilers. This is not an attack on you
since several other compiler+IDE systems are under compiler rather than
IDE. So the OP should also look at http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_compilers

See, we are not out to get you as much as you think.
Price:

Zero dollars and zero cents.
For personal use, which is probably fine for the OP but not for
everyone.http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_compilers
--
Flash Gordon
Aug 30 '06 #11

P: n/a
wmaple <wm****@126.comwrote:
There are many advantages of lcc.
Yes. One of them is that Pelle's C is based on it. Since that product
does not depend on extensive spamming to get attention, unlike one other
lcc-based IDE which one could (but should not) mention, I recommend that
if you want lcc, you try Pelle's C.

Richard
Aug 30 '06 #12

P: n/a
wmaple wrote:
There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this situation. Can lcc work like
turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?
Yes. You write a new file, and if you do not have a project created
the IDE creates one for you automatically.
Aug 30 '06 #13

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
wmaple <wm****@126.comwrote:

>>There are many advantages of lcc.


Yes. One of them is that Pelle's C is based on it. Since that product
does not depend on extensive spamming to get attention, unlike one other
lcc-based IDE which one could (but should not) mention, I recommend that
if you want lcc, you try Pelle's C.

Richard
You should have included the URL:

http://smorgasbordet.com/phpBB2/index.php
Aug 30 '06 #14

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
wmaple wrote:
>There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie
some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this situation.
Can lcc work like turbo c which complie source code without creating a
project?

Yes. You write a new file, and if you do not have a project created
the IDE creates one for you automatically.
Oh, so by "Yes" you mean "No"? He asked whether it's possible to compile
source code /without/ creating a project. When your IDE automatically
creates a project, it violates the OP's constraint.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Aug 30 '06 #15

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Richard Bos wrote:
>wmaple <wm****@126.comwrote:
>>>There are many advantages of lcc.
Yes. One of them is that Pelle's C is based on it. Since that product
does not depend on extensive spamming to get attention, unlike one other
lcc-based IDE which one could (but should not) mention, I recommend that
if you want lcc, you try Pelle's C.
Richard

You should have included the URL:

http://smorgasbordet.com/phpBB2/index.php
That's a discussion forum. The home page for the compiler appears to be:

http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Aug 30 '06 #16

P: n/a
wmaple wrote:
There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this situation. Can lcc work like
turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?
Maybe I misunderstood you.

You mean the command line compiler?

It just works like borland, instead of bcc you write lcc and
it compiles without creating a project at all.

The lcc utility does not make a link. The linker is called
lcclnk, but if you just want a one stop command line use
the "lc" utility that will compile and link.

jacob
Aug 30 '06 #17

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:

[snip]

Holidays over Heathfield?

Back at writing nonsense again?

Welcome back...

Aug 30 '06 #18

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Back at writing nonsense again?
If by "writing nonsense" you mean "correcting manifestly incorrect
assertions", then yes.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Aug 30 '06 #19

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.
Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

Richard
Aug 30 '06 #20

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

Richard
I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 30 '06 #21

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone
recommend? I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and
I guess I want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.


Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

Richard


I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.
Please reflect a bit .

Where should the executable be placed?

In the directory of the IDE?
In the directory of the source code?

Then, which compile time options you want to use.
None?
Default?

Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.
Last time I checked Dev-C++ does not have any code-completion
feature. Neither has any feature that would qualify to being
a good IDE for that matter...
Aug 30 '06 #22

P: n/a
jmcgill wrote:
ed wrote:

>>Look into vim, http://www.vim.org/


Hi Ed! Do you happen to have vim macros that do language-specific
bindings for things like keyword completion, filling parameter lists for
known library functions, or idiomatic code generation?

I love vim to death but whenever I see some of the things certain IDEs
can do, I find myself *wanting* those things.
Then maybe the OS known as emacs might interest you.

Either Windows or Linux can be a useful boot loader
for this OS.

goose,
sad, I know, but it's not my joke
Aug 30 '06 #23

P: n/a
Has anybody tried the LEONARDO C IDE ?

http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/%7Edemetr.../DownLoad.html

It seems to offers a "reversible" computing engine
(yes, forward and backward with a virtual CPU), and huge graphics lib.

JG
Aug 30 '06 #24

P: n/a
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:15 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
(a comment pointing out that you had answered a question with Yes,
when in fact the s/w under discussion did precisely the reverse of
what was asked for.
>Holidays over Heathfield?

Back at writing nonsense again?

Welcome back...
Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Aug 30 '06 #25

P: n/a
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:44:00 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
>>
I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Please reflect a bit .

Where should the executable be placed?
Why should anyone care? If you compile it and run it from the IDE, it
can place the executable entirely in memory for all the user cares.
>Then, which compile time options you want to use.
None?
Default?
Whatever were set through the GUI. This still doesn't require a
project, merely parsing of the settings into a set of commandline
arguments.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Aug 30 '06 #26

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:44:00 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>>Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
>>>I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Please reflect a bit .

Where should the executable be placed?


Why should anyone care? If you compile it and run it from the IDE, it
can place the executable entirely in memory for all the user cares.

>>Then, which compile time options you want to use.
None?
Default?


Whatever were set through the GUI. This still doesn't require a
project, merely parsing of the settings into a set of commandline
arguments.
Well I had forgotten how did I program that since it was several years
ago.

I closed my current project and opened a file with a standalone
application.

I pressed "compile "dotiger.c" " in the menu, and I obtained after
0.1 sec

dotiger.exe created successfully.

Project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked. I had (wrongly)
remembered that I asked for a project name, but not even that. Wedit
figures out the project's name from the file name, in this case it
created a "dotiger.prj" project.

It makes a subdirectory called "lcc" where it places the binaries.
Default options are debug info generation, and no optimizations.
The linker uses only the standard libraries (libc, kernel32.lib and
5 or 6 windows libraries that are often used.

I have been developing other stuff and forgot actually how easy it is.
Aug 30 '06 #27

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:15 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

(a comment pointing out that you had answered a question with Yes,
when in fact the s/w under discussion did precisely the reverse of
what was asked for.

>>Holidays over Heathfield?

Back at writing nonsense again?

Welcome back...


Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.
Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)

The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.
Aug 30 '06 #28

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>Where should the executable be placed?

Why should anyone care?
Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?
Aug 30 '06 #29

P: n/a
In article <44***********************@news.orange.frjacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
....
Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)

The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.
The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Aug 31 '06 #30

P: n/a
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article <44***********************@news.orange.frjacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
...
Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
>
The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.
Well, I told the original poster:
>>>
Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

A makefile documents what options you used for compiling, what
directory structure, etc. A "project" under lcc-win32 is just
a makefile.

Aug 31 '06 #31

P: n/a
jacob navia said:

<snip>
Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
The OP specifically asked for a way of compiling /without/ creating a
project.

<snip>
The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.
The OP said: "There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to
complie some trivial programs because i have to create projects which sre
unnessary in this situation. Can lcc work like turbo c which complie source
code without creating a project?"

From this, it is very clear that he is interested in compiling /without/
creating a project.
Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.
If by sarcasm you mean "corrections to manifestly incorrect assertions",
then yes.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Aug 31 '06 #32

P: n/a
jmcgill said:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>Where should the executable be placed?

Why should anyone care?

Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?
The executable program is where I put it, and where I put it might well
change. Or it might be put onto several machines. Or it might end up in
different locations on those different machines. Or maybe I will have no
control over where it ends up.

Under these circumstances, its physical location seems rather arbitrary, and
to have other systems - such as debuggers, or whatever - *rely* on its
physical location seems rather silly. If they need to know where it is when
they start up, fine, that's what argv is for.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Aug 31 '06 #33

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Yes, that's what's so bad about it. I _want_ my IDE to ask questions
like that, and to take "no" for an answer. When I do not want a whole
bleedin' bell-and-whistled project but just a quick compile to test an
idea I had, my IDE must be able to do that, and I shouldn't need to
clean up after its arse. The alternative is Microsoft-ware.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
That's a pretty stupid debugger you have, then. Luckily, Dev-C++ is more
intelligent than that.

Richard
Aug 31 '06 #34

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.
Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.
True. Apparently you want an IDE that gives you real freedom, freedom of
action, rather than one that only gives you freadom of speach or bear.
And like me, you've found that Dev-C++ gives you more of that than most
IDEs.
Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.
It says so in the code completion configuration dialog: press ctrl-space
when you're typing. If you're in the middle of a word, it jumps to the
first snippet that starts with that half-word. Personally, I don't use
it much.

Richard
Aug 31 '06 #35

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Dik T. Winter wrote:
>In article <44***********************@news.orange.frjacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
...
> Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.

Well, I told the original poster:
>>>
Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"
Then it is a project.

It is not a throwaway program like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char **argv[])
{

printf("sizeof fp = %lu\n",(unsigned long)sizeof(main));

return 0;
}

That people sometimes want to just try/test. Or a 30 liner you get
from a fried who asks you to help with an error.

The op can read the lcc documentation on how to invoke lcc from a
command line.
Aug 31 '06 #36

P: n/a
Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Dik T. Winter wrote:
>>In article <44***********************@news.orange.frjacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
...
Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its
stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.


Well, I told the original poster:
> >>>
Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

Then it is a project.

It is not a throwaway program like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char **argv[])
{

printf("sizeof fp = %lu\n",(unsigned long)sizeof(main));

return 0;
}

That people sometimes want to just try/test. Or a 30 liner you get
from a fried who asks you to help with an error.

The op can read the lcc documentation on how to invoke lcc from a
command line.
Exactly. My IDE is not good for everything. It will not replace a
command line like

lc myprog.c

easy and simple, the command line does everything you want!

jacob
Aug 31 '06 #37

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.


Yes, that's what's so bad about it. I _want_ my IDE to ask questions
like that, and to take "no" for an answer. When I do not want a whole
bleedin' bell-and-whistled project but just a quick compile to test an
idea I had, my IDE must be able to do that, and I shouldn't need to
clean up after its arse. The alternative is Microsoft-ware.
Look, you can do what you want with

lc myprog.c

at the command line. Mt IDE is not done for that kind of stuff,
since the command line compiler is better at that.

What do you wnat an IDE for?

IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment. You do not need
that for small throwaway programs.

>
>>Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)


That's a pretty stupid debugger you have, then. Luckily, Dev-C++ is more
intelligent than that.

Richard
Obviously the debugger is stupid. It will NOT figure out automagically
where the executable is.

How stupid isn't it?

Not at all like gdb, (the debugger Dev-C++ uses). As everyone knows
you have just to think

"Mmmm... maybe I should debug that"

and gdb will spring into action, read your mind and debug the program
you want without asking stupid questions.
Aug 31 '06 #38

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Dik T. Winter wrote:
>In article <44***********************@news.orange.frjacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
...
> Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.

Well, I told the original poster:
>>>
Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

A makefile documents what options you used for compiling, what
directory structure, etc. A "project" under lcc-win32 is just
a makefile.
What does the length of my program matter? I don't just want to be
making "Hello World" programs all my life. I want to be able to Ctrl+F9
and get a compile. Then F9 to run it. What's so hard about that? I just
want the IDE to be linked in with the compiler.

This thread is redundant and off-topic.

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 31 '06 #39

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:

Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.
Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.
I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

True. Apparently you want an IDE that gives you real freedom, freedom of
action, rather than one that only gives you freadom of speach or bear.
And like me, you've found that Dev-C++ gives you more of that than most
IDEs.
>Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

It says so in the code completion configuration dialog: press ctrl-space
when you're typing. If you're in the middle of a word, it jumps to the
first snippet that starts with that half-word. Personally, I don't use
it much.

Richard

Thank-you for answering my actual question.

As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to talk
about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I will. But I don't
need you to badger me with this.

It would be nice if Dev-C++ was still maintained. Great shame.

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 31 '06 #40

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want
to talk about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I
will. But I don't need you to badger me with this.
You have some misconceptions. There is no such thing as 'my
thread'. Everything on this (and other) newsgroups is totally
public. What is off-topic is discussion here about IDEs, which are
intrinsically system specific, and not specified in the C standard.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.netUSE maineline address!
Aug 31 '06 #41

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
<snipped>
As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to talk
about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I will. But I don't
need you to badger me with this.

you are being possibly a /little/ unfair to Mr Navia,
don't you think? He may have misunderstood your
requirements, but a little politeness wouldn't hurt.

goose,

Aug 31 '06 #42

P: n/a
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:06:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , jmcgill
<jm*****@email.arizona.eduwrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>Where should the executable be placed?

Why should anyone care?

Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?
You gratuitously snipped the rest of my quote. If you're compiling
inside the IDE, the location of the built executable is almost
certainly irrelevant since you're probably running it from inside the
IDE too.

Plus any IDE that doesn't let you specify default locaitons, and which
then can't pass this through to the compiler as commandline args, is a
bag o sh... I mean, even MSVC can do this.... :-)

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Aug 31 '06 #43

P: n/a
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:34:15 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
No, you don't. You could store these in a config file for the IDE,
common to all files you compile, at any time. Or you could store them
in memory for the duration of the session. The debugger can pick them
up from the IDE.
>Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.
No.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Aug 31 '06 #44

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:

Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Yes, that's what's so bad about it. I _want_ my IDE to ask questions
like that, and to take "no" for an answer. When I do not want a whole
bleedin' bell-and-whistled project but just a quick compile to test an
idea I had, my IDE must be able to do that, and I shouldn't need to
clean up after its arse. The alternative is Microsoft-ware.

Look, you can do what you want with

lc myprog.c
No, I can't. You evidently have no idea what I want.
>Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
That's a pretty stupid debugger you have, then. Luckily, Dev-C++ is more
intelligent than that.

Obviously the debugger is stupid. It will NOT figure out automagically
where the executable is.
Pretty stupid IDE, too, then, for not telling it.

Richard
Sep 1 '06 #45

P: n/a
goose wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
<snipped>
>As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to
talk about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I will. But I
don't need you to badger me with this.


you are being possibly a /little/ unfair to Mr Navia,
don't you think? He may have misunderstood your
requirements, but a little politeness wouldn't hurt.

goose,
Well usually I consider myself pretty polite. Maybe I'm confusing usenet
with a forum but I'm new to this. Usually it's not polite to hijack
things, or change the meaning of the discussion.

This is what Mr Navia has done. Which is rude in my opinion, but you're
right no need to fight fire with fire. I apologise.
--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Sep 1 '06 #46

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
goose wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
<snipped>
>>As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to
talk about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I
will. But I don't need you to badger me with this.
you are being possibly a /little/ unfair to Mr Navia,
don't you think? He may have misunderstood your
requirements, but a little politeness wouldn't hurt.
goose,

Well usually I consider myself pretty polite. Maybe I'm confusing
usenet with a forum but I'm new to this. Usually it's not polite to
hijack things, or change the meaning of the discussion.

This is what Mr Navia has done. Which is rude in my opinion, but
you're right no need to fight fire with fire. I apologise.
Hijacking a thread is rude, but the offense is against the newsgroup
community, not just against the originator of the thread. Nobody owns
a thread.

(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Sep 1 '06 #47

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
>
Hijacking a thread is rude, but the offense is against the newsgroup
community, not just against the originator of the thread. Nobody owns
a thread.

(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting nonsense is rude, and makes other people waste their time.

Disclaimer
----------
I am not saying that Keith Thompson posts nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???

Sep 1 '06 #48

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???
IIRC, you shifted the topic to IDE's (specifically, yours), proceeded
to explain that you needed to make a project to hold information for
said IDE, and then began to argue about the benefits of projects (or
makefiles, or whatever).

When informed that for small, hacky little programs, making an actual
project file would cause more trouble than it saves, you immediately
took that stance and declared that command line usage is the Right
Thing (in some cases).

When confronted with this, you stated that you didn't hijack anything,
because all you did was suggest using a command line (that's not all
you did), and that it's perfectly fine because most of the experts here
also prefer commandlines.

You seem to have forgotten that neither command lines or IDE's are on
topic in a C group, and you have shifted a somewhat-topical thread to
those two subjects, neither of which belong here. That's what I call
hijacking. Not only that, but your hijacking caused a flurry of come-
backs from regulars pointing out your rudeness, thus guaranteeing the
success of your off-topic post in hijacking the thread.
Finally, you seem to do such things very frequently in this group,
often simply to insult Richard Heathfield (and it's very rare for
you to have an actual point in doing so).
Notes after checking groups.google.com:
1) This thread wasn't ontopic in the first place, so there seems to be
no major issue (in this case).
2) Your original thread-hijacking post was a smarmy "Welcome back" to
Mr. Heathfield. Hmm.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.
Sep 1 '06 #49

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Hijacking a thread is rude, but the offense is against the newsgroup
community, not just against the originator of the thread. Nobody owns
a thread.
(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting nonsense is rude, and makes other people waste their time.

Disclaimer
----------
I am not saying that Keith Thompson posts nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???
Perhaps you didn't understand that when I wrote:

I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.

what I *really* meant was

I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.

I honestly didn't pay enough attention to that part of the discussion
to have an opinion. Jonathan Pritchard said you hijacked the thread;
since I was commenting in general terms on something else he wrote, I
felt it was important to state that I wasn't endorsing (or rejecting)
that statement. My intent was only to clarify why he was mistaken in
treating the thread as if he owned it. (I'm not pounding on Jonathan
here; I think it's clear that he now understands this.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Sep 1 '06 #50

70 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.