C
Chris Hills
Mark McIntyre said:
It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.
It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.
R
Richard
Frodo Baggins said:
A lot. Compared to using eclipse or VS, it's a lot of hard work with
none of the "ease" of use without a lot of work. emacs is itself a big
project to take on and a lot of the "C" utilities which plug in are
buggy and unfinished.
I use cscope, cedet, ecb, and gdb under gud in emacs and it's ok. But
nowhere near as easy or functional as a "proper" IDE like VS. PS, this
is under Linux where it is much more likely to work than under windows.
One thing I did see recently is that Slickedit now has a plugin for
Eclipse.
--
R
Richard
jacob navia said:
Not really an issue for 99% of cases I think.
Not true. There is a feature in semantic which will allow auto
completion. It's not perfect but is getting better.
In file you can use cedet/semantic.
True, but no big deal. You can use the automake tools.
No. You can set watch points and display them in gud/speedbar and they
hilite when they change. For repeated "display" you can use the
"display" command and variables are printed at each step.
J
jacob navia
Richard said:
Of course. If you buy a REALLY fast machine, it will
crawl along...
"Getting better" ...
Yeah. Of course.
And then you have to remember when you add
a file to the project to rerun them again, etc etc.
Yes, but I have to tell the dammed thing WHICH variables
to watch you understand? It will not show me automatically
the variables the program is modifying without me typing something!!!
lcc-win32's debugger does that.
R
Richard Heathfield
Frodo Baggins said:
To put it bluntly: emacs.
Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.
To put it bluntly: emacs.
Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.
R
Richard Heathfield
jacob navia said:
I have a new signature.
<snip>
I have a new signature.
<snip>
U
user923005
I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.
M
Martin Ambuhl
jacob said:
[heavy sarcasm mostly omitted. For the unknowing, Jacob is quite proud
of lcc-win32 and considers none of the "drawbacks" as reasons to avoid it.]
o You will find that most people in comp.lang.c will agree with me:
DO NOT USE LCC-WIN32!!!
This is the line that may cause a problem. Many people in
<use lcc-win32. I myself use it for projects that are
specifically for windows and for which a C-like language is an
appropriate choice. Jacob frequently posts about non-C "enhancements"
as if they were part of C and, in the course of answering questions
about C. encourages the unwary to use these non-C features as if they
were C. He frequently confuses criticism his inappropriate, off-topic
postings with criticism of lcc-win32. This is unfortunate.
M
Mark McIntyre
You have a different experience to me. We use gcc for a fairly
enormous set of systems at work which we compile for Windows, Solaris
and RHEL, and gcc not noticeably slower than MSVC on Linux (on Solaris
its a dog but thats a /solaris/ problem, not a gcc one...).
Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
there are tools for linux.
--
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
M
Mark McIntyre
Amongst which is that its author feels happy to covertly advertise it
in CLC, without disclosing his relationship.
--
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
R
Richard Tobin
[/QUOTE]
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.
-- Richard
R
Richard Heathfield
Richard Tobin said:
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he does, but that's a mistake. You are under no obligation to
point out errors in main(), or indeed to help anyone here. That you do
help people does you credit, but it's not your responsibility.
The comp.lang.c newsgroup is a technical group, not a sales channel. Mr
Navia should not be using it to advertise his product. But if he
insists on doing so, he is at the very least under a moral obligation
to explain that he has a commercial interest in the product.
Still, it now seems that he has lost confidence in the product, hence
his exhortation not to use it. I cannot help but agree with him on this
occasion; this exhortation constitutes advice that, for him, is
unusually perceptive and meaningful.
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he does, but that's a mistake. You are under no obligation to
point out errors in main(), or indeed to help anyone here. That you do
help people does you credit, but it's not your responsibility.
The comp.lang.c newsgroup is a technical group, not a sales channel. Mr
Navia should not be using it to advertise his product. But if he
insists on doing so, he is at the very least under a moral obligation
to explain that he has a commercial interest in the product.
Still, it now seems that he has lost confidence in the product, hence
his exhortation not to use it. I cannot help but agree with him on this
occasion; this exhortation constitutes advice that, for him, is
unusually perceptive and meaningful.
R
Richard Bos
jacob navia said:
This is fantastic advice.
^
not
HTH.
It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.
And for damned good reasons. Look up how many gaffes its creator has
made over the last couple of years on this newsgroup alone.
Richard
K
Keith Thompson
[...]
My understanding is that it conforms to C90 (or is it C95?) if you
invoke it with the "-ansic" option. I have no idea how good its
conformance is.
It also has an option that causes it to partially conform to C99, but
there are some features missing.
It provides a number of non-conforming extensions by default, but
that's fairly typical of C compilers. (The author's emphasis on those
extensions often obscures that point.)
C
Chris Hills
Richard Heathfield said:
There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring an
interest. If you want to stop Navia then all those recommending all
the other free SW should stop as well.
I note that in this NG if it is not GCC then it is OT. Despite GCC is
not C but a C-like language compiler.
BTW it looks like a free download. Where did you get "sales" from?
C
Chris Hills
Richard Bos said:
Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler
R
Richard Heathfield
Chris Hills said:
If they have a commercial interest in it, they ought to declare that
when recommending it. If they're merely interested in it, that isn't
the same thing. But if they stand to gain money from its promotion,
then it is reasonable to deduce that their advice may not be impartial,
so yes, you're right, they should declare an interest.
If they have a commercial interest in it, yes. Otherwise, why?
gcc is OT too. Occasionally, I answer questions about gcc (not often, of
course because it's OT) but then occasionally I answer questions about
Visual C (again, not often, because it's OT). The fact that we
occasionally see OT answers about gcc in here does not make gcc
topical.
Mr Navia has said, in a Usenet article which I'm sure you will have no
trouble in finding for yourself:
"Only if you want to include the compiler in your product you have to
pay. I have some customers that pay for this (and I hope I get more) so
that I am able to finance the development of lcc-win32. I have been
financing this project for more than 6 years now. I have never made any
money with my work, but in the last time I have been able to recover
some of the money I spend developing this software. Free software must
have a way of earning money to finance development, I see no other
possibility. So I decided that companies that use my work in a
commercial environment should pay for the product they get. What is
wrong with this?" (This particular quote is taken from 17 Apr 2003.)
Nothing, of course, is wrong with that, but it certainly demonstrates
that he does sell lcc-win32, and therefore he has a financial interest
that he ought to have been declaring when touting his product.
Now that he has decided to recommend NOT using lcc-win32, of course, the
matter is moot.
If they have a commercial interest in it, they ought to declare that
when recommending it. If they're merely interested in it, that isn't
the same thing. But if they stand to gain money from its promotion,
then it is reasonable to deduce that their advice may not be impartial,
so yes, you're right, they should declare an interest.
If they have a commercial interest in it, yes. Otherwise, why?
gcc is OT too. Occasionally, I answer questions about gcc (not often, of
course because it's OT) but then occasionally I answer questions about
Visual C (again, not often, because it's OT). The fact that we
occasionally see OT answers about gcc in here does not make gcc
topical.
Mr Navia has said, in a Usenet article which I'm sure you will have no
trouble in finding for yourself:
"Only if you want to include the compiler in your product you have to
pay. I have some customers that pay for this (and I hope I get more) so
that I am able to finance the development of lcc-win32. I have been
financing this project for more than 6 years now. I have never made any
money with my work, but in the last time I have been able to recover
some of the money I spend developing this software. Free software must
have a way of earning money to finance development, I see no other
possibility. So I decided that companies that use my work in a
commercial environment should pay for the product they get. What is
wrong with this?" (This particular quote is taken from 17 Apr 2003.)
Nothing, of course, is wrong with that, but it certainly demonstrates
that he does sell lcc-win32, and therefore he has a financial interest
that he ought to have been declaring when touting his product.
Now that he has decided to recommend NOT using lcc-win32, of course, the
matter is moot.
R
Richard Heathfield
Chris Hills said:
How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.
How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.
J
jacob navia
Chris said:
Because...
windows is from the evil empire Chris!
Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.
J
jacob navia
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.
-- Richard
[/QUOTE]
Exactly