A good compiler

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Interesting. There are no C compilers (we have been here before) very
few actually fully implement ISO C9899:1999 and ALL have their own
extensions.

So the C you want to discuss is not actually used but any real world
compiler is OT?

Few compilers support C99 fully; many support C90 well enough to be
considered conforming. Discussing extensions for networking or 3D
graphics doesn't magically become topical simply because one can find a
compiler which doesn't fully support a given C standard.

If you want to discuss ONLY standard C then go to comp.lang.std.c

Why? This group is for discussing C, such discussions belong here.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's free
for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have to
buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own
extensions. You appear to want to discuss a language that is not
implemented

Um, that's not quite true. Firstly, by longstanding convention, K&R C is
still topical here, and so is C90, despite the existence of a later
standard. Secondly, there are actually a handful of C99-conforming
products out there. See http://www.peren.com/pages/cvsa_isocvpl.htm for
details.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right

But neither does he have any *less* right.

 

[jacob navia]

This is NOT correct. You only speak for your self and may be a couple of
others. You do NOT and can not claim to speak for "C programmers"
because you don't.

I do not speak for anyone but my compiler is downloaded
approximately thousand times in a few days, more when the
classes start, (September). I have many universities and schools
as customers that support lcc-win32.

But I do not speak for my users, I speak for myself, as everybody else
here.

But there is no way to convince this people, so I think it is better
to ignore them, and try to push a better attitude in this group

jacob

 

[jacob navia]

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

 

[jacob navia]

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's free
for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have to
buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

Linux 64 costs around 300-400 Euros (Mandrake distribution).
Suse is even more expensive, at 799 US$. Redhat enterprise
is US$ 1500.

To ask a question to a technical support in RedHat I was recently
asked for US$ 25,000 by their commercial representative.

But many people here keep telling that linux is free, and I would agree
with them.

Linux is free, if you do not need any support, and you are in
a personal context.

But this, is normal for linux but a greedy personal profit for
everybody else.

Only linux people can earn money. All others should work for
nothing and live from thin air.

I have a wife and two kids. Sorry, but they need real money.

I live from my work, and I am not stealing anybody.

Is this clear?

jacob

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open
source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.
It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you
have to have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say
otherwise. Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather
than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

It is good that it is free for non-commercial use, but the fact remains
that you charge for it (for professional use). Nobody is complaining
about this, however. Read the thread to find out what they are
complaining about.

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

But RedHat are not constantly pushing Cygwin in comp.lang.c.

 

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

You are mistaken. Cygwin is free for both non-commercial and commercial use.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

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.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main(void)
{
char buff[32];
strcpy( buff, "Hello" );
printf( "%s\n", buff );
return 0;
}


Compile (F7 in the IDE). Result?

test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details.

Excuse me? A compiler that makes me jump through hoops just to compile
_correct_ code without whining and bitching? It's broken. Badly, badly
broken.

Same thing for, oh, fopen. Or any number of other perfectly good standard
library functions. The compiler is screwed, from design to inception.
That it's wrapped in a pretty box - I sorta like the IDE - doesn't make it
any more useful for the very purpose it exists for - to compile code.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

For someone around here to stop lying by saying "It's free" when it isn't;
it is only occasionally free.

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use you
have to buy a license from redhat.

See the makers if Cygwin in here, flogging their products? I don't.

Linux 64 costs around 300-400 Euros (Mandrake distribution).

Ubuntu will even ship you a CD, free of charge.

But many people here keep telling that linux is free, and I would agree
with them.

Linux is Free. It is also, occasionally, free. There's a difference.
There's also the fact that none of Torvalds, Suse, Mandrake nor DeadRat
are in here flogging their tools on a regular basis, as you are with yours.

Linux is free, if you do not need any support, and you are in a personal
context.

Linux may or may not be free; it is, however, Free. Free as in libre, not
as in gratis. Gratis was never really a requisite aspect of it. Nor is
this applicable, as "Linux" isn't in here flogging its wares, whereas you
are.

Only linux people can earn money. All others should work for nothing and
live from thin air.

If you like.

I have a wife and two kids. Sorry, but they need real money.

Nothing wrong with that.

I live from my work, and I am not stealing anybody.

Is this clear?

Nothing wrong with that, either. Guess what? There are web sites and
magazines and a thousand other places you can advertise. CLC isn't one of
them. Well, okay, yes you _can_ advertise in CLC; it merely makes you
unwelcome and garners ill will to you and your software, which one would
think would be contrary to your goals.

'Course, that said, if lcc is free, then its use in making money for wife
and kids is completely irrelevant, so never saying another word about it
in here - or anywhere - wouldn't make the slightest difference to you.
Oh, wait, that means you *are* trying to make money off it, so your
blustering about it being "free" is at best deceptive crap.

Yeah, well done. I'm definitely going to recommend people buy from
someone who lies through their teeth *and* completely ignores social
convention in order to flog their wares. I think people such as that are
generally called "spammers". I think I'll spend my money on things from
respectable sources, thanks.

 

[santosh]

[snips]

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.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main(void)
{
char buff[32];
strcpy( buff, "Hello" );
printf( "%s\n", buff );
return 0;
}


Compile (F7 in the IDE). Result?

test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details.

Excuse me? A compiler that makes me jump through hoops just to compile
_correct_ code without whining and bitching? It's broken. Badly, badly
broken.

That's just your opinion. The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what are
required by it.

 

[user923005]

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

No, actually is for discussions about the C standard.
That's not the same thing as a discussions about standard C.
[snip]

 

[Keith Thompson]

A FREE product.

My understanding is that not all versions of lcc-win32 are free. I
believe jacob navia does derive some monetary income from it. I'm not
certain of this, and I invite him to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Not that it's particularly relevant.

[...]

Interesting. There are no C compilers (we have been here before)
very few actually fully implement ISO C9899:1999 and ALL have their
own extensions.

Since C99 has not yet caught on, we often discuss C90. The C90
standard is officially obsolete, but the general consensus here is
that it's still topical. For that matter, pre-ANSI K&R C is also
topical, as is pre-K&R C, though we don't get many questions about
them. B and BCPL are perhaps marginal, but there's not enough
discussion of them to worry about.

Implementing extensions in a conforming manner, as allowed by the C
standard, does not cause a compiler not to be a C compiler. Many
(most? all?) C compilers provide non-conforming extensions, but most
of them provide options to disable them. Detailed discussions of such
extensions are off-topic.

So the C you want to discuss is not actually used but any real world
compiler is OT?

If you want to discuss ONLY standard C then go to comp.lang.std.c

There is no comp.lang.std.c. If you meant comp.std.c, that's for
discussion of the standard document (yes, the line between comp.std.c
and comp.lang.c can be fuzzy at timees).

Chris, I've asked you before to tell us what *you* think should be
considered topical here. I don't believe you've done so. If you do,
then I for one will take your complaints more seriously (though of
course I may still disagree).

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills said:

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Mr Navia. Perhaps you're right,
and he is mistaken in thinking that he charges for his product. From
his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence." [sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise. I am sure you can use Linux for free or
pay for support.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,

It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

It is freeware it is just not FOSS there are many types of free
software they all have various licenses including GCC .

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

For someone around here to stop lying by saying "It's free" when it isn't;
it is only occasionally free.

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

 

[Keith Thompson]

And every other "c " compiler on the planet

No, the C-like language I'm referring to is C plus a plethora of
lcc-win32-specific extensions, such as "qfloat", operator overloading,
and whatever else jacob has decided to implement. Again, I'm not
criticizing him for implementing those extensions, merely for
insisting on discussing them here.

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own
extensions. You appear to want to discuss a language that is not
implemented

See my previous comments about the continued topicality of C90,
pre-ANSI K&R C, etc.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right

Agreed. We both have that right. Or are you advocating censorship?
If not, please explain how "no right to say" differs from advocating
censorship.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 26/07/07 17:14:

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

This was in comparison to gcc which is free for both commercial and
non-commercial use. It also means that if I or many others here were to
make serious use of it then it would *not* be free for us, so we rightly
consider it to not be free.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Perhaps you're right, and [Mr Navia] is mistaken in thinking that he
charges for his product. From his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence."
[sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise.

Oh dear, Chris - so you're saying it's free except when it isn't? Fine,
but I think we kind of knew that already. Clearly, he derives (or is
trying to derive) an income from it.

I am sure you can use Linux for free or pay for support.

But Linus Torvalds doesn't push Linux in this newsgroup. Nor do RedHat
or any of the other people who stand to make money from its sale or
support.