C IDE Recommendations

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical.

Yes. In fact, in comp.lang.c we discuss the COMPuter programming LANGuage
known as C. I know that seems rather strange, given the name of the group,
but c'est la vie.

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

Yes, since the original poster said:


I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?


Because "wmaple" answered to my post with:


Yes that subthread was started with the reply of wmaple ([email protected])


Yes, that is my opinion. So what?


And I still say, if you care to follow the original discussion as it was
and not as you imagine it was.


The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.



So, if I say something and all "regulars"
fall on me like crazy it is MY FAULT obviously!

What a logic my dear.


Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...

Well no.

He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)

And *I* insult HIM of course.


Yes, I was sorry that the holidays are over.

Which is off topic nonetheless since this is not about ANSI C.
Furthermore, this is why I didn't really want an argument about
command-line compiling versus IDE compiling.

The thread's off topic nature I apologise for, I just didn't know where
else to put it. But my apologies Mr Navia for my prior rudeness to you.

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.

(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)

Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally which
should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to easily
port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?

I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>

I sit corrected.
--
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

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

[...]
The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.
For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.
(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)

Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?

I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.

Let me add that you should get advice about this from more people than
just me.

Maximum portability isn't always the most important thing. For
example, a lot of programmers might be able to assume that their code
only needs to be compilable with recent releases of gcc; others might
be able to assume POSIX support, or Windows, or whatever. Or you
might find the advantages of "//" comments more important than the
risk that a strict C90 compiler won't support them.

 

[Peyman]

take a look at www.codeblocks.org

 

[Flash Gordon]

Let me add that you should get advice about this from more people than
just me.

Maximum portability isn't always the most important thing. For
example, a lot of programmers might be able to assume that their code
only needs to be compilable with recent releases of gcc; others might
be able to assume POSIX support, or Windows, or whatever. Or you
might find the advantages of "//" comments more important than the
risk that a strict C90 compiler won't support them.

I agree with Keith. In addition, you might have to do things which
cannot be done without extensions to C. However, when doing this you
should try to keep your system specific pats isolated from the rest of
the code. This will ease porting if/when you need to and generally also
lead to a better program structure.

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

I agree with Keith. In addition, you might have to do things which
cannot be done without extensions to C. However, when doing this you
should try to keep your system specific pats isolated from the rest of
the code. This will ease porting if/when you need to and generally also
lead to a better program structure.

Thanks Flash and Keith

 

[Jack G. Atkinson Jr]

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

Are you using release candidate 2 of Code::Blocks? If so, I highly
recommend you download the latest nightly build from their website.
It's light years better than the release candidate, and I think they
fixed the problem you're concerned with. I seem to remember just
opening up a simple C program source file, and it built and ran just
fine without a project.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack G. Atkinson Jr.
(e-mail address removed)
Psa 104:4 He makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flaming fire.
Luke 12:36-47 - Be ready!
------------------------------------------------------------------