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?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <hb**************@bombur.uio.no>,
Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@usit.uio.nowrote:
....

>Which is exactly what I'm protesting against, and it wouldn't _matter_
if The Definition you claimed was "The C standard and C compilers" or
whatever. What I dislike is the the unfriendly and carefully unhelpful
responses to postings, and even answers, that are deemed "off-topic" by
whatever The Definition is.

It's just the way it is. Live with it - and, as I have, come to love
it. The regs don't like it though, if you actually get into their crazy
ways.

>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but I
do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

It's been this way since at least the early/mid 90s.
It *would* be an interesting bit of archaelogy to find out exactly how
and why it happened. Anyone know?

[Default User]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

CBFalconer writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

If that's not a C program, where do you put the limit for whether
it's a C program? Must compile without errors? Not more than some
fraction of errors? Or do you too not care?

It's an erroneous C program.

Yes, I can tell it's errenous. I was answering what I assumed was a
yes/no question of whether it was a C program.

All the problems can be answered by reference to the C standard.
Nothing more is needed. No guessing is involved.

Which is exactly what I'm protesting against, and it wouldn't matter
if The Definition you claimed was "The C standard and C compilers" or
whatever. What I dislike is the the unfriendly and carefully
unhelpful responses to postings, and even answers, that are deemed
"off-topic" by whatever The Definition is.

I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.


Brian

[Richard Tobin]

In article <4u*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

>When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

The 1980s.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk writes:

>Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

The 1980s.

Google shows non-ISO C matters still going strong 1996 - perhaps a bit
too strong. In 1997, a message "Welcome to comp.lang.c!" appeared
which included the text
"First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c is a group for
discussion of general issues of the C programming language, as
defined by the ANSI/ISO language standard."
and redirects to elsewhere took a definite upwards turn, but but I
don't see that turn anyone hostile to non-ISO C matters. Besides,
that welcome message was helpful in itself with a list of other groups
to post "off-topic" matters to.

--
Hallvard

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <hb**************@bombur.uio.no>,
Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@usit.uio.nowrote:

>ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk writes:

>>Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>>>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

As I posted earlier, the *idea* that this ng be completely devoid of
contact with the real world (and hence useless) has been around since at
least the early 90s. However, the level of fanaticism connected to that
belief hadn't really reached full maturity until around the beginning of
this decade (/century/millennium).

As with most fanatical religious programs, this has been accomplished
through the purging of any but the most devout followers of the creed.

[Default User]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk writes:

Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway,

but >>I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful
before that.

>
When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any
of these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people
who dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to
be more of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I
didn't search all that much.

Your statement is rubbish, because it completely mischaracterizes what
CURRENTLY goes on. Yes, that sort of thing didn't happen much in the
old, but then it doesn't now.

Brian

[Randy Howard]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote
(in article <hb**************@bombur.uio.no>):

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk writes:

>Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>>>I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

Hmm, the Dan Pop-ification of ClC is/was a slippery slope?


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw