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?

 

[paz]

Build-> compile is inActive too :-(

I created new project and add my file to it, but it didn't help.


paz ëúá:

 

[Richard Heathfield]

paz said:

Hi,

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

This question is not topical in comp.lang.c BUT personally, I think it
should be. K&R have this to say on the matter:

"This is the big hurdle; to leap over it you have to be able to create the
program text somewhere, compile it successfully, load it, run it, and find
out where your output went. With these mechanical details mastered,
everything else is comparatively easy."

The niceties of Visual Studio are of course nothing to do with C itself, and
so normally I'd recommend that you find a Microsoft site. But frankly, if I
do that, you'll probably end up becoming a Microsofty, and I wouldn't wish
that on anyone.

So - here is the URL of a quick guide to starting a new C project in Visual
Studio (covers versions 5 and 6). If you have an earlier or later version
of Visual Studio, the basic procedure is typically much the same, but
things are in different places, that's all.

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/windows/vcprj.php

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...

 

[pete]

paz said:

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/windows/vcprj.php

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 do it differently:

I open any .c or .h file
which happens to already be in the bin directory,
which is where my compiler looks for source code.

I do a "Save as..." which is an option under "File"
and which copies the file under a new name like "new.c"

I rewrite the file and then under "Build"
I select "Compile new.c".

At this point the compiler asks me if I want to create a
new workspace and I reply "Yes".

Then under "Project", I click "Settings"
and under the "C/C++" tab, I raise the warning level to 4.

Then under "File" I select "Save Workspace".

When I want to add additional c files to the project,
then while the project is still open,
I open additional c files under "File".

I go to "Build" again and when I try to compile the additional
C files, the compiler gives me the option to add the file
to the project and I select "Yes".

I open the programs header files for viewing,
but I never add them to the project.

.... and that's how I wrote and compiled e_driver.c

http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/e_driver/

 

[jacob navia]

paz said:




This question is not topical in comp.lang.c BUT personally, I think it
should be. K&R have this to say on the matter:

"This is the big hurdle; to leap over it you have to be able to create the
program text somewhere, compile it successfully, load it, run it, and find
out where your output went. With these mechanical details mastered,
everything else is comparatively easy."

The niceties of Visual Studio are of course nothing to do with C itself, and
so normally I'd recommend that you find a Microsoft site. But frankly, if I
do that, you'll probably end up becoming a Microsofty, and I wouldn't wish
that on anyone.

So - here is the URL of a quick guide to starting a new C project in Visual
Studio (covers versions 5 and 6). If you have an earlier or later version
of Visual Studio, the basic procedure is typically much the same, but
things are in different places, that's all.

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/windows/vcprj.php

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...

Yes. Do not worry, the other members of this group will never cry
"off topic" when heathfield does something like this. It is only when
I answer "off topic" questions like "bss" or the mapping of the
program sections to the constructs in the C language when everybody
will start screaming.

Answering about MSVC is not that bad and not off topic at all.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:


Yes. Do not worry, the other members of this group will never cry
"off topic" when heathfield does something like this.

Probably not on *this* occasion, because they'll sympathise with the OP - we
were all newbies once - but "never"? Dream on. If I post off-topic stuff, I
*should* be criticised for so doing, and people are perfectly prepared to
do that. Chris Dollin did so earlier today, actually, in a thread about the
generation of unique IDs - and he was quite right. So - wrong again, Mr
Navia!

It is only when
I answer "off topic" questions like "bss" or the mapping of the
program sections to the constructs in the C language when everybody
will start screaming.

No, it's not just you. It's all of us. And no, nobody (or at least none of
the reasonable folk) will start screaming. It is possible to communicate
without screaming.

Answering about MSVC is not that bad and not off topic at all.

I wasn't giving an answer about MSVC in general, though - I was just giving
the guy a kickstart to help him get under way with his C learning.

 

[Keith Thompson]

paz said:

This question is not topical in comp.lang.c BUT personally, I think it
should be. K&R have this to say on the matter:

"This is the big hurdle; to leap over it you have to be able to create the
program text somewhere, compile it successfully, load it, run it, and find
out where your output went. With these mechanical details mastered,
everything else is comparatively easy."

The niceties of Visual Studio are of course nothing to do with C itself, and
so normally I'd recommend that you find a Microsoft site. But frankly, if I
do that, you'll probably end up becoming a Microsofty, and I wouldn't wish
that on anyone.

So - here is the URL of a quick guide to starting a new C project in Visual
Studio (covers versions 5 and 6). If you have an earlier or later version
of Visual Studio, the basic procedure is typically much the same, but
things are in different places, that's all.

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/windows/vcprj.php

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...

Your guilty plea is rejected. You merely redirected the OP to a more
appropriate source of information. The fact that it wasn't another
newsgroup is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, you are sentenced to community service for an indefinite
period (or until you get tired of it).

 

[Al Balmer]

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...

That's the first time I've heard that particular reason for an
off-topic post, and I must admit that it's more persuasive than most

 

[paz]

Thanks!

 

[paz]

Thanks Pete!
I follow the steps and It's working now

Paz

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

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.programmer 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.

 

[jacob navia]

Hallvard B Furuseth a écrit :

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.programmer 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:

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.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

jacob navia said:



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]

[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:

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.

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Hallvard B Furuseth a écrit :

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.

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.

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

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".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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.