Visual C++ Express Edition or lcc-win32?

[Generic Usenet Account]

I don't know of any C++ compilers ostensibly written by self-serving
buffoons, but of course it's entirely possible that this is merely
ignorance on my part.

I follow these threads from time to time. I may be wrong, but I
always feel that we like to pick on poor Jacob Navia. He is one of
our favorite punching bags. Is there any background to this that we
need to be aware of, or is this mere animus?

Just my $0.02 worth,
Gus

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Generic Usenet Account said:

I follow these threads from time to time. I may be wrong, but I
always feel that we like to pick on poor Jacob Navia. He is one of
our favorite punching bags. Is there any background to this that we
need to be aware of, or is this mere animus?

It is entirely possible that Jacob Navia has, in the last few weeks,
become a model of correctness; that he has stopped pushing his compiler
in clc; that he has stopped making highly personal and insulting
attacks on those who raise reasonable points with which he doesn't
agree or which (more often) he seems to be incapable of understanding;
that he has started accepting corrections instead of arguing the toss
over them; that he has recognised that the proper place for proposing
language changes is comp.std.c rather than comp.lang.c; and that he has
given up trying to pretend that his language extensions are standard C
features.

Yes, it's entirely possible. But it's unlikely. I wouldn't know, since I
plonked him some weeks ago. Based on such quotes as I have seen in
replies to him by others, however, I can't say that such a renaissance
seems terribly likely.

If ever it does happen, I'll be delighted for Mr Navia. But, alas, I'm
not holding my breath.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

It is entirely possible that Jacob Navia has, in the last few weeks, ....
given up trying to pretend that his language extensions are standard C
features.

LOL! Sounds a lot like David Stes in c.l.objective-c.

I guess every group has one...

sherm--

 

[Richard]

If ever it does happen, I'll be delighted for Mr Navia. But, alas, I'm
not holding my breath.

Please do. For a long, long time.

"alas".

You are the definition of Narcissus.

 

[Army1987]

[followup set to comp.lang.c]

Army1987 wrote: [snip]

If you don't need C99 support and can wait for 90MB to download,
use MSVC. Its long double is eight bytes, but at least the fractal
picture I generate computing with them isn't yellowed by a bug
which prevents a three byte struct from being returned correctly.

??? This was fixed at least a year ago. Can you send a test
example? http://groups.google.it/group/comp....n+returning+a+struct"&rnum=1#842f1a7d476c7c65

Also it doesn't have the upper limits of some unsigned types
suffixed with LL without any U.

Either it is a fixed bug since ages or you are talking nonsense.

In limits.h I have
#define ULLONG_MAX 18446744073709551615ULL

And in stdint.h you have (except for the comments):
#ifndef __stdint_h__
#define __stdint_h__

[snip]

#define INTMAX_C(a) (a##LL)
#define UINTMAX_C(a) (a##LL)
/* What? */

typedef char int_fast8_t;
typedef unsigned char uint_fast8_t;
typedef short int_fast16_t;
/* well, is int_fast16_t smaller than int? The standard suggests
* that int has the "natural" size, so is something unnatural
* faster? Also, on glibc with this same processor int_fast16_t
* is int, does the relative speed of types depend on the OS, on
* the compiler, or what? */
typedef unsigned short uint_fast16_t;
typedef int int_fast32_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_fast32_t;
typedef long long int_fast64_t;
typedef unsigned long long uint_fast64_t;

[snip]

#define INT8_MIN -128
#define INT16_MIN -32768
#define INT32_MIN -2147483648
/* 2147483648 doesn't fit in a int32_t, so its type can't be
* int32_t, and neither the type of its negation can. */
#define INT64_MIN -9223372036854775808LL
/* 9223372036854775808 doesn't fit in any signed type... */

[snip]

#define RSIZE_MAX INT32_MAX
/* Well, where on Earth does the C standard grant you the right to
* invade the user namespace like that? */
#endif

Well, I remembered the other way round... Except for the case of
the UINTMAX_C macro...

Can you provide an example?

Obviously a typo invalidates all other features of this compiler.

Using MSVC of course prevents you from all bugs since it is
a well known thing that Microsoft has never any bugs.

If the OP wants to be "prevented from all bugs" he'd not be using
Windows in the first place (or even not a computer in the first
place...)

 

[Chris Hills]

Apologies if my cross posting has offended anyone....

For a pure hobbyist C/C++ programmer, who wants to develop
applications to run on Windows, what would be a better choice to
install: Visual C++ Express 2005 Edition or lcc-win32? Does anyone
have any opinion to share?

No contest. Visual C++ Express 2005.
Why?
Not because I like Microsoft
Not because it is the best compiler.

Simply because it will come with a smooth integration into windows, all
the libraries and example projects and lots of help.

In short it is VERY easy for a novice to set up and use with minimum
fuss.

 

[Chris Hills]

Apologies if my cross posting has offended anyone....

For a pure hobbyist C/C++ programmer, who wants to develop
applications to run on Windows, what would be a better choice to
install: Visual C++ Express 2005 Edition or lcc-win32? Does anyone
have any opinion to share?

I've used MS compilers (with various success) from around 1990, and
eventually (unfortunately, only recently) they got quite decent. I
cannot vouch for their C[99] support, but their C++ compliance is
very good.

ISO Compliance is not relevant. The OP is looking for an easy
(inexpensive) way of creating applications for MS Windows. A compiler
that is MS compliant is what is required.

Which is why people use GCC on Linux. Because both use the same flavour
of C.

 

[Chris Hills]

lcc-win32 is not a C++ compiler. There is no such language as
C/C++. There are many compilers that can handle both C and C++,
but they have to be told what to compile in some manner or other.
If you want to just develop standard C programs,

The OP does not. He wants to do apps that run on MS Windows.

look into DJGPP
and its port of gcc.

Gcc is not ISO C99 compliant either. (And I think less so than the MS
compilers these days.)

Avoid Visual C, because it will try to lock you into various
non-portable Microsoftianisms.

SO WHAT that is the only platform the OP is interested in.

Similarly lcc-win32. Read the gcc

and Gcc

documentation, and always use "-ansi -pedantic -W -Wall" until you
have very good (and rare) reasons to use non-standard coding.

That is not sensible if you are only going to target MS Windows... just
how do you interface to the Windows libraries in "standard C"?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Gcc is not ISO C99 compliant either. (And I think less so than the
MS compilers these days.)

Really? My impression, based entirely on what I've read here, is that
MS has expressed no interest in supporting C99. Do you have better
information?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

It is entirely possible that Jacob Navia has, in the last few weeks,
become a model of correctness; ....
Yes, it's entirely possible. But it's unlikely. I wouldn't know, since I
plonked him some weeks ago. Based on such quotes as I have seen in
replies to him by others, however, I can't say that such a renaissance
seems terribly likely.

Good guess.
--
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

 

[Richard Bos]

Apologies if my cross posting has offended anyone....

For a pure hobbyist C/C++ programmer, who wants to develop
applications to run on Windows, what would be a better choice to
install: Visual C++ Express 2005 Edition or lcc-win32? Does anyone
have any opinion to share?

I've used MS compilers (with various success) from around 1990, and
eventually (unfortunately, only recently) they got quite decent. I
cannot vouch for their C[99] support, but their C++ compliance is
very good.

ISO Compliance is not relevant. The OP is looking for an easy
(inexpensive) way of creating applications for MS Windows. A compiler
that is MS compliant is what is required.

Dev-C++, then. Unlike either of the ones mentioned by the OP, it is both
free (in the sense of not having to pay for it) and free (in the sense
of not shackling you into its own preferred way of creating programs),
though not Frea (in the sense of chaining you to a Gnu licence, as gcc
does). It's a pretty small download, as well. And it does both C _and_
C++ (though not, AFAIK, C/C++).

[ And why on earth is this cross-posted to comp.sources.d!? ]

Richard

 

[Chris Hills]

Really? My impression, based entirely on what I've read here, is that
MS has expressed no interest in supporting C99. Do you have better
information?

PJP said (I think here) that MSVC was now C99 compliant as MS had got
religion in the last couple of years and don standards compliant.

Actually MS is very actively doing a lot in the standards world (usually
via ECMA and ruffling a few feathers in ISO)

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

Nimmi Srivastav wrote:
Apologies if my cross posting has offended anyone....

For a pure hobbyist C/C++ programmer, who wants to develop
applications to run on Windows, what would be a better choice to
install: Visual C++ Express 2005 Edition or lcc-win32? Does anyone
have any opinion to share?

I've used MS compilers (with various success) from around 1990, and
eventually (unfortunately, only recently) they got quite decent. I
cannot vouch for their C[99] support, but their C++ compliance is
very good.

ISO Compliance is not relevant. The OP is looking for an easy
(inexpensive) way of creating applications for MS Windows. A compiler
that is MS compliant is what is required.

Dev-C++, then. Unlike either of the ones mentioned by the OP, it is both
free (in the sense of not having to pay for it) and free (in the sense
of not shackling you into its own preferred way of creating programs),
though not Frea (in the sense of chaining you to a Gnu licence, as gcc
does). It's a pretty small download, as well. And it does both C _and_
C++ (though not, AFAIK, C/C++).

In what way dos gcc chain you to GPL, it does not place any restrictions
on the code you write. And I'd just like to point out that Dev-C++ uses
the Mingw gcc.

Personally I prefer Visual C++ 2005 Express since it is free, (in the
sense of not having to pay for it) and free (in the sense of not
shackling you into its own preferred way of creating programs). And it
has got the best debugger I've ever used (not that I have used that
many, but it beats gdb).

 

[John Smith]

I don't know of any C++ compilers ostensibly written by self-serving
buffoons, but of course it's entirely possible that this is merely
ignorance on my part.

RH is clc's official Jacob Navia baiter -- JS, c.l.c 30 Jul 07

If that is true, I hereby resign the position. I'm
not interested in baiting Mr Navia. -- RH, c.l.c 30 Jul 07

I guess your're just not capable of knowing your own mind or
controlling your own behaviour.

JS

 

[Richard Heathfield]

John Smith said:

RH is clc's official Jacob Navia baiter -- JS, c.l.c 30 Jul 07

If that is true, I hereby resign the position. I'm
not interested in baiting Mr Navia. -- RH, c.l.c 30 Jul 07

I guess your're just not capable of knowing your own mind or
controlling your own behaviour.

You guess wrong. Mr Navia is in my killfile, so even if I were
interested in baiting him, there wouldn't be any point. But that
doesn't mean I am no longer free to express my opinions.

If I truly wanted to bait Mr Navia, I would first buy shares in Nomex.

 

[BobR]

Erik Wikström wrote in message...

In what way dos gcc chain you to GPL, it does not place any restrictions
on the code you write. And I'd just like to point out that Dev-C++ uses
the Mingw gcc.

Nit(FYI): Dev-C++ is an IDE.
You *can* download a package that includes MinGW (the windows
port of GCC (gcc is the 'C' compiler)), and uses that as it's
default. The IDE *can* be configured to use other compilers
(and you can use the GCC from other IDEs).

--
Bob R
POVrookie
- -
Dev-C++ IDE: http://www.bloodshed.net/
MinGW (GNU compiler): http://www.mingw.org/
MinGWStudio http://www.parinyasoft.com/
Code::Blocks http://www.codeblocks.org/

 

[John Smith]

The project is financed by the paying customers.

I'd be interested in knowing who are your commercial customers.
Would they be willing to comment on their experience with your
compiler?

JS

 

[Bo Persson]

Chris Hills wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>, Keith Thompson
::: [...]
:::: Gcc is not ISO C99 compliant either. (And I think less so than
:::: the MS compilers these days.)
:::
::: Really? My impression, based entirely on what I've read here, is
::: that MS has expressed no interest in supporting C99. Do you have
::: better information?
::
:: PJP said (I think here) that MSVC was now C99 compliant as MS had
:: got religion in the last couple of years and don standards
:: compliant.

It's not C99 compliant. The only religion they follow is there own, so
the compiler fully implements the C++/CLI standard.

::
:: Actually MS is very actively doing a lot in the standards world
:: (usually via ECMA and ruffling a few feathers in ISO)

Setting standards is fun, implementing them not so much.


Bo Persson

 

[jacob navia]

I'd be interested in knowing who are your commercial customers. Would
they be willing to comment on their experience with your compiler?

JS

This is actually the result of years of effort calling people,
making demos, traveling around, etc. Please understand that I can't
give this away like this.

If you want references I can give some, but not all. Mathworks is
still distributing my compiler system with their Matlab software.
It is in the distribution CD.

The SmartEiffel compiler uses lcc-win as its back-end.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Dev-C++, then. Unlike either of the ones mentioned by the OP, it is both
free (in the sense of not having to pay for it) and free (in the sense
of not shackling you into its own preferred way of creating programs),
though not Frea (in the sense of chaining you to a Gnu licence, as gcc
does). It's a pretty small download, as well. And it does both C _and_
C++ (though not, AFAIK, C/C++).

The GPL is only relevant if your app includes some or all of the source
code of a GPL'd app, as-is or modified. In that case, you'd be obligated
to distribute your app under the GPL.

The GPL has *zero* impact on the output of a GPL'd app. Your app is not
somehow "infected" by the simple act of editing your own code with a GPL'd
IDE, or compiling it with a GPL'd compiler. The idea that it would (or
can) be is pure FUD.

sherm--