C programme

[Kev P.]

Hi, I need to do some simple C programming.
I have a really OLD version of Borland Turbo C,
or fairly old Borland C++ v5.0.

However, I expect there is now something free (& better) available
online.

Can anyone recommend something.

I'm just a C dabbler, not relly up on C++

TIA, Niv

 

[Al Balmer]

Hi, I need to do some simple C programming.
I have a really OLD version of Borland Turbo C,
or fairly old Borland C++ v5.0.

However, I expect there is now something free (& better) available
online.

Can anyone recommend something.

I'm just a C dabbler, not relly up on C++

TIA, Niv

You might like OpenWatcom, free at www.openwatcom.org .

 

[Randy Howard]

Kev P. wrote
(in article

Hi, I need to do some simple C programming.
I have a really OLD version of Borland Turbo C,
or fairly old Borland C++ v5.0.

However, I expect there is now something free (& better) available
online.

Can anyone recommend something.

I'm just a C dabbler, not relly up on C++

TIA, Niv

Off-Topic:
Assuming you want something for Windows, if you want to use the
command line, you can either download the free microsoft
compiler, or several gcc variants.

If you want an IDE development environment, try something like
Dev-C++ (despite the name, it can be used for straight C) from
Bloodshed.

In the future, you should ask questions like this in a forum
that caters to your specific platform interest.

c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

 

[Default User]

Hi, I need to do some simple C programming.
I have a really OLD version of Borland Turbo C,
or fairly old Borland C++ v5.0.

However, I expect there is now something free (& better) available
online.

Can anyone recommend something.

http://c-faq.com/resources/compilers.html



Brian

 

[Netocrat]

http://c-faq.com/resources/compilers.html

Another adjunct:
<http://www.clc-wiki.net/wiki/c_compilers>

 

[Default User]

Another adjunct:
<http://www.clc-wiki.net/wiki/c_compilers>

I'll have to start remembering the wiki




Brian

 

[pemo]

Kev P. wrote
(in article


c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I mean, come
on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c* - i.e., there's
nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie shouldn't ask *anything*
that's even *marginally c-related* here [apart from from the pedantry of
some of some of the folks that post here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where would you
go and ask on the usenet!! ?

--
===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce 'unwanted noise' on the 'signal' ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, a pedant will be along
shortly'].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[Netocrat]

Randy Howard wrote: [...]

c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I mean, come
on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c* - i.e., there's
nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie shouldn't ask *anything*
that's even *marginally c-related* here [apart from from the pedantry of
some of some of the folks that post here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where would you
go and ask on the usenet!! ?

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

 

[Flash Gordon]

I'll have to start remembering the wiki

You could even add to it ;-)

 

[pete]

pemo wrote:

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions:

No.
That's where you post,
when you want to discuss the C standard document itself.
If you want to propose changes to the standard, that's the place.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Kev P. wrote [...]
c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions:

No. comp.std.c is for discussion of the standard *as a document*.
This includes discussions of errors and ambiguities in the standard,
proposals for changes to the standard, and so forth. comp.lang.c is
for discussion of the language defined by the standard. The exact
division admittedly isn't always obvious.

I mean, come
on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c* - i.e., there's
nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie shouldn't ask *anything*
that's even *marginally c-related* here [apart from from the pedantry of
some of some of the folks that post here]

Again, no. Standard C is a bit enough topic to keep us well occupied.
There are *plenty* of system-specific newsgroups out there. If you
have a question that depends on POSIX features, for example, you can
ask in comp.unix.programmer. If you have a question that depends on
Windows-specific features, there are a number of Windows groups,
including comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32. And so forth.

Our neighbor down the hall, comp.lang.c++, once experimented with
allowing anything C++-related to be discussed. It nearly destroyed
the newsgroup, as the people who wanted to discuss the language itself
were unable to get through the noise. The group has since recovered.
(This is second-hand information; I didn't witness this myself, but
I've heard about it.)

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where would you
go and ask on the usenet!! ?

Quite possibly I'd go to comp.lang.c. If my question can be answered
within the scope of the standard, I'll probably get a good answer. If
not, hopefully someone will be kind enough to politely tell me where
to go to find the experts on whatever I'm asking about.

If I'm a sufficiently clever newbie, I might follow the newsgroup for
a while, or scan the recent archives, and find out whether my question
is topical before I post it.

[snip]

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, a pedant will be along
shortly'].

The fact that factual errors are quickly corrected here is, IMHO, one
of the best features of this newsgroup. I suggest that you *should*
care about correctness, for the sake of the newbies if nothing else.

 

[Barry]

Kev P. wrote
(in article


c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I mean, come
on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c* - i.e., there's
nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie shouldn't ask *anything*
that's even *marginally c-related* here [apart from from the pedantry of
some of some of the folks that post here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where would you
go and ask on the usenet!! ?

If I were a newbie and I had a question I might ask it here. The replies
would help me to discern where the
question is appropriate.

..

--
===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce 'unwanted noise' on the 'signal' ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, a pedant will be along
shortly'].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[pemo]

Randy Howard wrote: [...]

c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I
mean, come on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c*
- i.e., there's nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie
shouldn't ask *anything* that's even *marginally c-related* here
[apart from from the pedantry of some of some of the folks that post
here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where
would you go and ask on the usenet!! ?

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

Sorry - can't [be asked] to follow arbitrary URLs - what's NOT clear about
comp[uting].lang[uages].c?!

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's for
homework, well, I'll at least be not so much *up my own arse* that I'll
simply dismiss it. And **** you as a PS.


===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce 'unwanted noise' on the 'signal' ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, *a pedant* will be along
shortly'].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[Keith Thompson]

Randy Howard wrote: [...]
c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I
mean, come on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c*
- i.e., there's nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie
shouldn't ask *anything* that's even *marginally c-related* here
[apart from from the pedantry of some of some of the folks that post
here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where
would you go and ask on the usenet!! ?

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

Sorry - can't [be asked] to follow arbitrary URLs - what's NOT clear about
comp[uting].lang[uages].c?!

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's for
homework, well, I'll at least be not so much *up my own arse* that I'll
simply dismiss it. And **** you as a PS.

I just wrote a rather lengthy response to this. I've decided not to
post it for now; I may do so later.

pemo, please consider carefully whether you really want to antagonize
most of the readers of this newsgroup. Your attitude and behavior
have already put your further meaningful participation in this
newsgroup in serious doubt. I suspect a number of regulars have
already killfiled you, or will do so as soon as they read your latest
article. If you'll stop for a few minutes and think about it, I think
you'll understand why.

This is really just an honest difference of opinion over how this
newsgroup should be run -- and, frankly, you're not going to win.

Please reconsider your attitude and behavior. You'll find that
verbally abusing people who are trying to be helpful will not benefit
anybody.

 

[Netocrat]

I mean, come on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c*
- i.e., there's nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie
shouldn't ask *anything* that's even *marginally c-related* here

[...]
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

Sorry - can't [be asked] to follow arbitrary URLs -

OK, then I'll explain that it's a Jack Klein post from November last year
that's the most balanced explanation I've yet read of the current
topicality norms in c.l.c.

what's NOT clear about comp[uting].lang[uages].c?!

The referenced post answers your question like this: there's nothing
unclear about the computing language, C - there's a single international
standard that defines it.

We'd all much rather discuss the technical than the meta-topical here,
right? So if, after reading that post, you come away thinking "hmm, well,
it makes enough sense" - great, let's get back to it. If you come away
thinking, "yes, but...", well then think it through carefully and post an
article responding to the issues it raises. I doubt that anyone here
*wants* to be seen as authoritarian/unkind - but neither does anyone want
to see their (excellent) technical group overrun with unfocused,
undiluted discussion and lose all expertise. I don't begrudge you having
an opinion on this group's topicality norms - and I haven't even expressed
my own opinion of them - all I've done is point out a long-time
contributor's explanation, so I don't see what you found so offensive for
you to end your post the way you did.

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's
for homework, well, I'll at least [not simply dismiss it.]

I've noticed several regulars who frequently go beyond the strict
topicality norms when answering off-topic questions but who do so in such
a careful and sensible way that they don't get called on it, so agreed,
mostly there's no need to be dismissive.

 

[pemo]

[...]
c.l.c is for discussions of standard C, not platform-specific
discussions.

Isn't comp.std.c *really* the place for *stanard c* questions: I
mean, come on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c*
- i.e., there's nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie
shouldn't ask *anything* that's even *marginally c-related* here
[apart from from the pedantry of some of some of the folks that post
here]

Q. If you were a 'newbie', and had some C related question, where
would you go and ask on the usenet!! ?

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

Sorry - can't [be asked] to follow arbitrary URLs - what's NOT clear
about
comp[uting].lang[uages].c?!

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's for
homework, well, I'll at least be not so much *up my own arse* that I'll
simply dismiss it. And **** you as a PS.

I just wrote a rather lengthy response to this. I've decided not to
post it for now; I may do so later.

pemo, please consider carefully whether you really want to antagonize
most of the readers of this newsgroup. Your attitude and behavior
have already put your further meaningful participation in this
newsgroup in serious doubt. I suspect a number of regulars have
already killfiled you, or will do so as soon as they read your latest
article. If you'll stop for a few minutes and think about it, I think
you'll understand why.

This is really just an honest difference of opinion over how this
newsgroup should be run -- and, frankly, you're not going to win.

Please reconsider your attitude and behavior. You'll find that
verbally abusing people who are trying to be helpful will not benefit
anybody.

--

Keith, please feel free to post the missive that you're holding back!

Secondly, should I really *truly care* if anyone does/doesn't add me to
their 'killfile' [whatever that is: I can guess!] - like, do you or anyone
here think that it's really going to offend -or- upset me in the slightest
if my 'articles' are automagically deleted by some 'clique come quango'
before the members of any subscribing factions 'dain' to read what I might
add, or contribute? Life's too short!

And anyway, what's with this term 'article' ---- oh, please don't post
another 60s/70s/80s etiquette URL! Replies are REPLIES, they're really not
'articles' you know. Um, maybe the usenet (c.l.c) should =relucantly= drag
itself into the 21st century here?

BUT, [deep breath - and I really did that then!] thanks for informing me of
the long sought after and erstwhile 'killfile' term [Q. Ok, how might I
create one of these myself: as I'd like to add certain people to it]?

Fact: I've only been posting here 'recently'. Fact: when I first posted
here, I thanked you for being 'constructive' - and I think you're trying to
be now too?

... and, frankly, you're not going to win

Who says? It's surely a matter of opinon/time - and whose killfile I might
end up in?

I stand by what I've said, although, in 'female speak' it's not a good time
of the month right now! No shag for you then!


===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce 'unwanted noise' on the 'signal' ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, *a pedant* will be along
shortly'].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[pemo]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:26:54 +0000, pemo wrote: [...]
I mean, come on people, this group is *computing DOT languages DOT c*
- i.e., there's nothing in the name that suggests that a newbie
shouldn't ask *anything* that's even *marginally c-related* here [...]
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/1460ed5b9ad3dae1?hl=en&>

Sorry - can't [be asked] to follow arbitrary URLs -

OK, then I'll explain that it's a Jack Klein post from November last year
that's the most balanced explanation I've yet read of the current
topicality norms in c.l.c.

what's NOT clear about comp[uting].lang[uages].c?!

The referenced post answers your question like this: there's nothing
unclear about the computing language, C - there's a single international
standard that defines it.

We'd all much rather discuss the technical than the meta-topical here,
right? So if, after reading that post, you come away thinking "hmm, well,
it makes enough sense" - great, let's get back to it. If you come away
thinking, "yes, but...", well then think it through carefully and post an
article responding to the issues it raises. I doubt that anyone here
*wants* to be seen as authoritarian/unkind - but neither does anyone want
to see their (excellent) technical group overrun with unfocused,
undiluted discussion and lose all expertise. I don't begrudge you having
an opinion on this group's topicality norms - and I haven't even expressed
my own opinion of them - all I've done is point out a long-time
contributor's explanation, so I don't see what you found so offensive for
you to end your post the way you did.

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's
for homework, well, I'll at least [not simply dismiss it.]

I've noticed several regulars who frequently go beyond the strict
topicality norms when answering off-topic questions but who do so in such
a careful and sensible way that they don't get called on it, so agreed,
mostly there's no need to be dismissive.

I refer you to the reply I previously made to the honourable gentelman - or
some such 'Blair Speak'

--
===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce 'unwanted noise' on the 'signal' ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - 'not 100% pedantically correct'].
I don't care too much about that though, and I reckon it's the
same with most 'visitors' here. However, rest assured that any
'essential' (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - 'to add noise as they see fit, *a pedant* will be along
shortly'].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[Mike Wahler]

For the record - if one wants to ask *anything* about C, even if it's for
homework, well, I'll at least be not so much *up my own arse* that I'll
simply dismiss it. And **** you as a PS.

Pa... lonk!

-Mike

 

[pemo]

Pa... lonk!

Right back at ya ... table tennis - love it!

--
===============================================================
In an attempt to reduce ‘unwanted noise’ on the ‘signal’ ...

Disclaimer:

Any comment/code I contribute might =NOT= be 100% portable, nor
semantically correct [read - ‘not 100% pedantically correct’].
I don’t care too much about that though, and I reckon it’s the
same with most ‘visitors’ here. However, rest assured that any
‘essential’ (?) corrections WILL almost certainly appear v.soon
[read - ‘to add noise as they see fit, *a pedant* will be along
shortly’].

WARNINGS: Always read the label. No beside-the-point minutiae
filter supplied. Keep away from children. Do not ignite.
===============================================================

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

You could even add to it ;-)

Baby steps. BABY steps.



Brian