A free version of C++ on Win (7)??

Discussion in 'C++' started by W. eWatson, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
     
    W. eWatson, Nov 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
     
    Victor Bazarov, Nov 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
    > On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
    >> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
    >
    > V

    Is it free?
     
    W. eWatson, Nov 23, 2011
    #3
  4. W. eWatson

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 11/24/11 07:37 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    > On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
    >> On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
    >>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >>
    >> There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
    >>


    > Is it free?


    Have you checked?

    --
    Ian Collins
     
    Ian Collins, Nov 23, 2011
    #4
  5. On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.

    The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
    Express". The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
    a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
    do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
    trap you in a Microsoft-specific world, and this includes automatically
    generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).

    The g++ compiler is part of the GNU (GNU is Not Unix) toolchain for
    *nix, or perhaps, for not *nix? It has two major ports to Windows,
    namely as part of Cygwin, and a freestanding version, which is called
    MinGW (Minimal GNU on Windows). There are many variants of MinGW g++
    produced by different people, and ironically the most difficult way to
    get hold of this compiler is via the MinGW project's own pages...

    An easy way to get the MinGW g++ compiler is to install an IDE such as
    Code::Blocks that has g++ as its default compiler. Unfortunately this is
    likely to get you a pretty old version. But it's easy, and you need the
    IDE anyway in order to use the debugger in a reasonable way.

    Both compilers come complete with a set of command line tools.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 23, 2011
    #5
  6. W. eWatson

    Ebenezer Guest

    On Nov 23, 1:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
    > wrote:
    > On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:
    >
    > > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
    >
    > The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
    > Express". The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
    > a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
    > do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
    > trap you in a Microsoft-specific world, and this includes automatically
    > generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).
    >


    It also produces executables that are significantly larger than
    GCC on Linux. The best thing I can say about the Microsoft
    compiler is it sometimes provides better errors/warnings than
    GCC.

    Brian Wood
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    Ebenezer, Nov 23, 2011
    #6
  7. W. eWatson

    Lynn McGuire Guest

    On 11/23/2011 11:42 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    www.openwatcom.org has a free C++, C and F77 compiler
    that supports producing DOS16, DOS32, Win16 and Win32
    programs. There is an IDE and a source code debugger
    with DOS16, Win16 and Win32 interfaces.

    Lynn
     
    Lynn McGuire, Nov 23, 2011
    #7
  8. W. eWatson

    puppi Guest

    On Nov 23, 3:42 pm, "W. eWatson" <> wrote:
    > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    If you absolutely must develop for Windows for professional reasons,
    using Windows-specific APIs, then please follow the above advices.
    Otherwise there really isn't any reason why you should be using
    Windows and not Linux, afterall...
     
    puppi, Nov 24, 2011
    #8
  9. On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
    > wrote:
    > On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:


    > > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
    >
    > The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
    > Express".


    one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
    decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
    also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.

    > The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
    > a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
    > do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
    > trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,


    that's a bit harsh.

    > and this includes automatically
    > generated code (it's a good idea to ask for "empty" projects).


    quite

    > The g++ compiler is part of the GNU (GNU is Not Unix) toolchain for
    > *nix, or perhaps, for not *nix?


    it also traps you into a non-standard mode by default. Though
    admittedly it doesn't generate code.

    > It has two major ports to Windows,
    > namely as part of Cygwin, and a freestanding version, which is called
    > MinGW (Minimal GNU on Windows). There are many variants of MinGW g++
    > produced by different people, and ironically the most difficult way to
    > get hold of this compiler is via the MinGW project's own pages...
    >
    > An easy way to get the MinGW g++ compiler is to install an IDE such as
    > Code::Blocks that has g++ as its default compiler. Unfortunately this is
    > likely to get you a pretty old version. But it's easy, and you need the
    > IDE anyway in order to use the debugger in a reasonable way.
    >
    > Both compilers come complete with a set of command line tools.


    I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
    debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
    me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.
     
    Nick Keighley, Nov 24, 2011
    #9
  10. On Nov 24, 1:40 am, puppi <> wrote:
    > On Nov 23, 3:42 pm, "W. eWatson" <> wrote:
    >
    > > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > If you absolutely must develop for Windows for professional reasons,
    > using Windows-specific APIs, then please follow the above advices.
    > Otherwise there really isn't any reason why you should be using
    > Windows and not Linux, afterall...


    why not or is this just the stallman koolade talking?
     
    Nick Keighley, Nov 24, 2011
    #10
  11. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    On 11/23/2011 11:05 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
    > On 11/24/11 07:37 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    >> On 11/23/2011 9:46 AM, Victor Bazarov wrote:
    >>> On 11/23/2011 12:42 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
    >>>> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?
    >>>
    >>> There is the "Express Edition" of Visual C++...
    >>>

    >
    >> Is it free?

    >
    > Have you checked?
    >

    "Wellll, paardoooon me." -- Steve Martin
     
    W. eWatson, Nov 24, 2011
    #11
  12. W. eWatson

    ralph Guest

    On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
    <> wrote:

    >On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
    >> wrote:
    >> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:

    >
    >> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >>
    >> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.
    >>
    >> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
    >> Express".

    >
    >one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
    >decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
    >also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.
    >


    Perhaps not as "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" as you think. Name another
    commercial alternative for Windows programming? There are few
    remaining.

    >> The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
    >> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
    >> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
    >> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,

    >
    >that's a bit harsh.


    Agree.

    Windows IS a "Microsoft-specific world". I have always failed to
    understand why people get upset over that simple fact. Microsoft owns
    Windows. Period.

    So they give away a development platform with the deliberate intention
    to get you to buy the full version. Duh!

    >

    ....
    >
    >I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
    >debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
    >me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.


    All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
    stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>

    -ralph
     
    ralph, Nov 24, 2011
    #12
  13. W. eWatson

    Richard Guest

    [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

    "W. eWatson" <> spake the secret code
    <jajbao$6jj$> thusly:

    >I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    Get Visual C++ Express Edition. It's free and has no limitations on
    the code that you produce with it (i.e. you can develop commercial
    products with it).

    Using gcc or other *nix-derived compilers is fine *if* you never intend
    to write programs that use the Win32 API or anything other than POSIX
    style system interfaces. Otherwise, its just too much pain and I'd
    recommend using the Visual C++ Express Edition instead.

    As for Visual C++ "tricking" you into using Windows specific items,
    I'd say that's just disgruntled *nix fanboy sentiment talking. It
    isn't hard at all to write very portable code using Visual C++. I
    have done it for years. If you don't know what's Windows or Visual
    C++ specific in any project template, then read the docs on it.
    Everything that is Windows/VC specific is documented as such.

    As for the badness of "generated" code, Visual C++ simply recognizes
    that each application type has some boilerplate that is the same from
    project to project. Writing a console application? You're going to
    need a main(). And so-on. The project templates simply save you some
    work by generating this boiler plate when you create the project.

    There's nothing magic or evil about this code, you can edit it or
    delete it to your heart's content.
    --
    "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 version available for download
    <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

    Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
     
    Richard, Nov 25, 2011
    #13
  14. On Nov 24, 4:59 pm, ralph <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Nov 23, 7:24 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
    > >> wrote:
    > >> On 23.11.2011 18:42, W. eWatson wrote:


    > >> > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > >> The two main free C++ compilers for Windows are Visual C++ and g++.

    >
    > >> The Visual C++ compiler is bundled with an IDE called "Visual C++
    > >> Express".

    >
    > >one of microsoft marketing's more shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
    > >decisions. Visual C++ is actually a perfectly good C++ compiler. It
    > >also provides a quite reasonable C compiler.

    >
    > Perhaps not as "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" as you think. Name another
    > commercial alternative for Windows programming? There are few
    > remaining.


    it just seemed a dumb naming convention. Visula C used to be (may
    still be) a different language from C. I suspect Microsoft achieved
    dominance of the Window's compiler market by means other than pure
    technical excellence.

    But it is a good C++ compiler and it is a reasonable GUI.

    > >> The full commercial version of that IDE is Visual Studio. For
    > >> a novice the main thing to be aware of is that while it *allows* you to
    > >> do standard C++ programming, it effectively uses all kinds of tricks to
    > >> trap you in a Microsoft-specific world,

    >
    > >that's a bit harsh.

    >
    > Agree.
    >
    > Windows IS a "Microsoft-specific world". I have always failed to
    > understand why people get upset over that simple fact. Microsoft owns
    > Windows. Period.


    but you can write standard C/C++ programs (so-called console programs)
    and you can write applications with little Windows's dependence (eg.
    using OpenGL). You can also write Win32 programs without using their
    <expletive> "wizards" (boiler-plate generator). Sometimes it would be
    be nice if they made this easier, or more obvious.

    "meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick
    to anger"
    Gandalf The Grey

    > So they give away a development platform with the deliberate intention
    > to get you to buy the full version. Duh!


    I don't feel any particular compulsion to buy the full version (and
    I've used the full version- when someone else is paying for it).

    > >I gave up on MingW as I [had] difficulty persauding it to generate
    > >debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
    > >me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.

    >
    > All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
    > stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>


    gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.
     
    Nick Keighley, Nov 25, 2011
    #14
  15. W. eWatson

    Krice Guest

    On 23 marras, 22:18, Ebenezer <> wrote:
    > It also produces executables that are significantly larger than
    > GCC on Linux.


    I don't know about Linux, but in Windows VC actually makes
    smaller executables in Release (non debug) mode than GCC
    in similar mode (without debug information). On the other
    hand GCC seems to include something that makes it more
    portable even between Windows versions. Executables of VC
    require some VC runtime libraries that aren't installed by
    default in all Windows versions. (But I guess usually are.)

    Starting with a clean project VC is like GCC, you can use
    standard C/C++ libraries and write portable code.
    I have made it a habit to write code in VC (because it has
    a great debugger) and then create a final executable in GCC.
    It's cool, because they both seem to catch different kind
    of issues and warn about them, making the source code even
    more portable and improving the code quality.
     
    Krice, Nov 25, 2011
    #15
  16. W. eWatson

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 25/11/11 09:40, Nick Keighley a écrit :
    >
    > gcc on linux is fine. It may even be fixed on Windows for all I know.
    >


    This is the contrary to my experience and the experience of all the
    people at work.

    We have a huge C++ program (a database management system) written in
    C++ and we run under linux and windows.

    Nobody ever develops under linux, the problem is that there, the
    only choice you have is the terrible gcc/gdb combination, what
    makes any debugging and developing an incredible effort.

    Under windows we use the C++ IDE above all for the Go To Definition
    feature, what saves us HOURS of grepping each week. As you (may)
    know, with several dozens of overloaded functions of the same name
    it is impossible to know which function will be called unless
    you have an exact map of the class structure and template structure
    of the application.

    Problem is, the application is too big to fit in the head of a single
    developer as a whole, nobody unerstand all the details since the
    application has been debeloped by the team for over 6 years.

    Many people have left and come, and it is today not possible to debug
    a problem without having this feature.

    When you develop, the IDE proposes you choices that avoid common
    mistaks and allow you to think more into WHAT are you writing rather
    than

    "Was it SomeCompositeName, someCompositeName or some_composite_name"?

    Yes, pedants will start with "Ahhh but you should have enforced
    consistent naming conventions" and all that crap that is good in theory
    but never found in real programs.

    Another problem of gcc is that it generates slower executables than
    MSVC, and specially slower than the Intel compiler, the best x86
    compiler around.

    Under linux, it is impossible to avoid the gcc/gdb combination but using
    a windows machine we can still use the "Go to definition" feature
    if we run in parallel the gdb debugger and the Visual C++ IDE.

    And no, Eclipse is not usable. Written in Java, it chockes at the
    hundred thousands of lines of the application.
     
    jacob navia, Nov 25, 2011
    #16
  17. On 25.11.2011 04:14, Richard wrote:
    > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]


    This is good advice in general.


    > "W. eWatson"<> spake the secret code
    > <jajbao$6jj$> thusly:
    >
    >> I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?

    >
    > Get Visual C++ Express Edition. It's free and has no limitations on
    > the code that you produce with it (i.e. you can develop commercial
    > products with it).
    >
    > Using gcc or other *nix-derived compilers is fine *if* you never intend
    > to write programs that use the Win32 API or anything other than POSIX
    > style system interfaces. Otherwise, its just too much pain and I'd
    > recommend using the Visual C++ Express Edition instead.


    Well that's highly misleading.

    MinGW g++ supports ordinary API level programming, which covers most of
    the Windows API.

    But in my experience g++ does not in general support the latest
    Microsoft "technologies", whether buzzword or useful. For example, there
    was a time when g++ did not support GDI+, which is/was a very useful new
    "technology" (essentially added graphics capabilities that had been
    lacking for about ten years or so). I think but I'm not sure that GDI+
    support has been added to g++ now. Anyway, creating a g++ binding was
    quite laborious because Microsoft, unnecessarily, used Visual C++
    compiler-specific features and really Bad Practices ,such as using min
    and max macros instead of the functions from <algorithm>, in their GDI+
    headers. There are two possibilities: unbelievable incompetence, or
    intentional attempt to trap users in Microsoft land.


    > As for Visual C++ "tricking" you into using Windows specific items,
    > I'd say that's just disgruntled *nix fanboy sentiment talking. It
    > isn't hard at all to write very portable code using Visual C++. I
    > have done it for years. If you don't know what's Windows or Visual
    > C++ specific in any project template, then read the docs on it.
    > Everything that is Windows/VC specific is documented as such.
    >
    > As for the badness of "generated" code, Visual C++ simply recognizes
    > that each application type has some boilerplate that is the same from
    > project to project. Writing a console application? You're going to
    > need a main(). And so-on. The project templates simply save you some
    > work by generating this boiler plate when you create the project.
    >
    > There's nothing magic or evil about this code, you can edit it or
    > delete it to your heart's content.


    It's true that Visual C++ *enables* you to write standard code.

    But sometimes you have to work really hard at it. Like, when it
    presumably with the best of intentions try to help you by rewriting your
    standard-compliant XHTML code to Microsoft-specific rubble. I remember
    how ironic this was when MS released Internet Explorer 7, I think it
    was, anyway the version after the long hiatus, the version with better
    support for standards. The MS web page about this new version was
    perfectly standard-conforming, which caused a lot of really impressed
    and positive commentary -- for about 8 hours, when they updated it, and
    the MS tools screwed it totally up forever...

    When I wrote that novices should be aware of the (intentional or not)
    Visual Studio attempts to trap the user in the Microsoft world, I did
    not expect any discussion about that, because it is so well known and so
    obvious to anyone experienced. So I did not give any examples. But OK,
    now's the time.

    Let's create a console project in Visual C++ Express 10.0.

    We (you) are the teacher or lab assistant, providing instructions to a
    novice. You want to /avoid/ that the novice ends up with Visual Studio's
    automatically generated console program "starter code". Because that
    starter code is not only Microsoft specific but teaches extreme wrongness.

    <code>
    // first_program_ever.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console
    application.
    //

    #include "stdafx.h"


    int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
    {
    return 0;
    }

    </code>

    Here the comment at the top is wrong, it's not the "entry point" but
    rather the "startup function" (one of the most infamous Microsoft
    documentation bugs, still there as far as I know, describes the WinMain
    startup function signature as the signature of a program's entry point).

    The "stdafx.h" header is not a standard header. It is a header used for
    Visual C++ precompiled header technology. Which changes the semantics
    such that *standard code* fails to compile, with baffling (to the
    novice) "end of file" error messages. There is no advantage to
    precompiled headers for a little console program, but lots of
    disadvantages, including the non-standard semantics. I.e., when we
    discount colossal incompetence as an explanation, it's an attempt to
    trap the user in Microsoft-land.

    "_tmain" is not a standard startup function name. The standard name is
    "main". "_tmain" is in support of Windows 9x. Conceivably whoever
    maintained this just forgot about stopping to use that thing after 2001,
    when the Layer for Unicode was introduced to deal with the lack of
    Unicode support in Windows 9x. But would anyone really believe that they
    forgot about that for 10 years? I don't.

    Similarly, "_TCHAR" in the argument list is non-standard, and is solely
    in support of Windows 9x.

    Finally, the "return 0;" is unnecessary, but it is the only thing here
    that is not an attempt to unnecessarily trap the user in Microsoft land.

    To avoid that entrapment, you have to provide step by step instructions
    like those below, ordering the novice to do things in an apparently (to
    the novice) needlessly and senselessly complicated way -- which as I see
    it, of course is by design, an attempt to trap in Microsoft world.

    Step 1.
    Run Visual C++ Express by clicking its icon.

    In Windows 7 one way I can do this is by typing "visual" in the Start
    menu, and selecting the (on my machine) second choice.

    Step 2.
    Click "New Project", select Windows Console Project, fill in
    details

    This can look like <url: http://i.imgur.com/4V1bE.png>.

    Step 3.
    Click OK in "New Project" and ***DO NOT*** click "Next" in the
    "Application Wizard" that pops up. Instead click "Application
    Settings". This can look like <url: http://i.imgur.com/9ifsE.png>.

    Step 4.
    In the "Application Settings" page, **FIRST** remove the tick
    mark in the "Precompiled Header" box. **THEN** place a tick mark
    in the "Empty Project" box. Doing this the opposite order won't
    work.

    Now you might wonder, at version 10.0 of Visual Studio, as of 2011, is
    it likely that there is still such an idiotic bug in one of the most
    often used dialogs? Well yes, it is IMHO likely, that it is there *by
    design*. That Microsoft rather heavy-handed steers the user towards
    using "Precompiled header" at least, which changes the semantics of
    ordinary C++ code so that it is no longer standard conforming (wrt.
    header inclusion), but instead Microsoft specific, and for standard code
    yields baffling error messages about encountering end-of-file.

    Step 5.
    Click Finish, right click the Source folder in the project, and add
    an a new file (you can call it "main.cpp", or anything).

    That's a pretty awkward procedure just to avoid the entrapments!

    And so it goes, e.g. for COM programming where instead of associating
    classes with UUIDs via standard C++ traits or even just a macro namer
    thing, a non-standard language extension is used. This language
    extension serves no purpose in C, where it would just as well be done
    via macros, and in C++ it has no advantages compared to a traits class.
    It is solely a device to trap the user in Microsoft land.

    And so on.

    All of this *can* in principle be avoided, and that's what I wrote.

    But it is very much necessary to be aware of it.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 25, 2011
    #17
  18. W. eWatson

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Thu, 2011-11-24, ralph wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:59:06 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
    > <> wrote:

    ....
    >>I gave up on MingW as I difficulty persauding it to generate
    >>debuggable code. This may have been the Bloodshed IDE that was giving
    >>me gip. I found VS less painful and a nicer GUI.

    >
    > All open source is essentially a construction kit. Some damn nice
    > stuff out there, but it alls need to be stamped "DIY". <BG>


    On Windows perhaps that's true, but in any (free) Unix it's certainly
    not -- unless you think anything which isn't one big IDE is a
    DIY construction kit.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Nov 25, 2011
    #18
  19. On 11/24/2011 1:42 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm using Win 7. In any case, is there a free version of C++ or Win?


    Do you need basic C++ or C++ with GUI controls?
     
    Man-wai Chang, Nov 25, 2011
    #19
  20. W. eWatson

    Richard Guest

    [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

    Nick Keighley <> spake the secret code
    <> thusly:

    >[...] Visula C used to be (may
    >still be) a different language from C.


    and this claim is based on what?
    --
    "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 version available for download
    <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

    Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
     
    Richard, Nov 26, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ARaman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
    Mike Wahler
    Oct 23, 2003
  2. V Green
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    859
    V Green
    Feb 5, 2008
  3. PA Bear [MS MVP]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    969
    PA Bear [MS MVP]
    Feb 5, 2008
  4. MowGreen [MVP]
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,021
    PA Bear [MS MVP]
    Feb 9, 2008
  5. Krist
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    751
    Arne Vajhøj
    May 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page