Compiling and distributing C programs

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Malcolm McLean, Jun 23, 2013.

  1. Here's the situation.

    I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.

    I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.

    Microsoft sell paid for C compilers, but they are too expensive for
    hobby use. They offer Visual Studio Express. So I downloaded it. It's
    a horrible thing and you have to fight it just to compile "hello world".
    But it does the trick, as long as you only want to compile standard C
    with a few Windows API calls.

    Now I wanted to write a snake game. Just a bit of fun. So I had to fight
    it to put in the few amateur graphics - you have to edit the so-called
    resource script by hand. However it won't link the PlaySound() function.
    I can't get the beeps in. Now if a freebie hobby compiler isn't suitable
    for "snake", what is it intended for?

    Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them because
    of the virus threat.

    Now the Vista machine is getting long in the tooth. I thinking of replacing
    it by Windows 8. But I feel so badly bitten by Microsoft, that I really
    feel twice shy. But the reality is that most PCs still run Windows.

    I want to be able to write little programs like "snake", with graphics and
    sound, and distribute them to people who want to play them. I don't have
    vast sums to spend. What's the best way of achieving that end?
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 23, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Malcolm McLean

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 06/23/2013 06:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
    > Here's the situation.
    >
    > I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >
    > I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    > minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    > portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    > labelling the executables it produced. ...


    I presume your anti-virus software labeled them as infected? If so, can
    you be certain it was wrong? If a virus were infecting your compiler,
    your linker, and possibly any one of several other possible pieces of
    software, production of infected executables would be a plausible
    consequence.

    > ... I had a nice paid for Visual
    > Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    > professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.


    You're using "paid for" as an adjectival phrase here. I couldn't
    possibly cite the relevant grammar rule, but based upon a half-century
    of voracious reading in English, I'm pretty sure that should be written
    as "paid-for". I found it very confusing without the dash.

    > Microsoft sell paid for C compilers, but they are too expensive for
    > hobby use. They offer Visual Studio Express. So I downloaded it. It's
    > a horrible thing and you have to fight it just to compile "hello world".
    > But it does the trick, as long as you only want to compile standard C
    > with a few Windows API calls.
    >
    > Now I wanted to write a snake game. Just a bit of fun. So I had to fight
    > it to put in the few amateur graphics - you have to edit the so-called
    > resource script by hand. However it won't link the PlaySound() function.
    > I can't get the beeps in. Now if a freebie hobby compiler isn't suitable
    > for "snake", what is it intended for?
    >
    > Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them because
    > of the virus threat.
    >
    > Now the Vista machine is getting long in the tooth. I thinking of replacing
    > it by Windows 8. But I feel so badly bitten by Microsoft, that I really
    > feel twice shy. But the reality is that most PCs still run Windows.
    >
    > I want to be able to write little programs like "snake", with graphics and
    > sound, and distribute them to people who want to play them. I don't have
    > vast sums to spend. What's the best way of achieving that end?


    If you were looking specifically for a Microsoft solution, I couldn't
    answer any of your questions. However, if that's what you were looking
    for, you would have posted it to a MicroSoft-oriented forum (right?). I
    know that you can get all the tools you need to build a snake-like game
    for Linux, absolutely free. It's not my area of expertise, so I couldn't
    give you an detailed advice about how to do it, but snake-like games are
    commonplace in the Linux world. Download one of the projects from
    <http://sourceforge.net/directory/games/os:linux/?q=snake> to find out
    how they do it.

    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Jun 23, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Malcolm McLean

    JohnF Guest

    Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
    > Here's the situation.
    > I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    > I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler)


    Not sure about graphics support, but I use both
    http://www.mingw.org/
    and
    http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/
    to distribute win executables without problem.
    And, btw, people seem to still request executables,
    despite virus possibilities.
    --
    John Forkosh ( mailto: where j=john and f=forkosh )
    JohnF, Jun 23, 2013
    #3
  4. Malcolm McLean

    Nobody Guest

    On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 03:57:42 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:

    > However it won't link the PlaySound() function.


    You need to link in winmm.lib.

    > I want to be able to write little programs like "snake", with graphics and
    > sound, and distribute them to people who want to play them. I don't have
    > vast sums to spend. What's the best way of achieving that end?


    Either MinGW (gcc for Windows) or Visual Studio Express.

    There are plenty of advantages to using VS (e.g. the debugger), but any
    program of that size has a significant learning curve. Actually, whatever
    program you use, programming for a modern OS has a significant learning
    curve.

    Personally, I use MinGW if I'm writing a cross-platform program, and VS if
    it's going to be Windows-only (apart from anything else, it's easier to
    find pre-compiled libraries for VS).
    Nobody, Jun 23, 2013
    #4
  5. Malcolm McLean

    Ian Collins Guest

    Malcolm McLean wrote:
    > Here's the situation.
    >
    > I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >
    > I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    > minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    > portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    > labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    > Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    > professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.


    Just avoid windows and move to a more developer friendly, anti-virus
    free, platform.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jun 23, 2013
    #5
  6. Malcolm McLean

    BartC Guest

    "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >> Here's the situation.
    >>
    >> I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >>
    >> I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    >> minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    >> portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    >> labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    >> Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    >> professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.

    >
    > Just avoid windows and move to a more developer friendly, anti-virus free,
    > platform.


    Sure. Then you just have to persuade thousands of customers to do the same!

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Jun 23, 2013
    #6
  7. Malcolm McLean

    Ian Collins Guest

    BartC wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>> Here's the situation.
    >>>
    >>> I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >>>
    >>> I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    >>> minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    >>> portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    >>> labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    >>> Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    >>> professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.

    >>
    >> Just avoid windows and move to a more developer friendly, anti-virus free,
    >> platform.

    >
    > Sure. Then you just have to persuade thousands of customers to do the same!


    If I were developing a simple game (of for the time!) I would be be
    writing it on Linux for Android, or Mac for IOS. if my kids and their
    mates are typical, that's were the audience and potential market is
    these days.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Jun 23, 2013
    #7
  8. Malcolm McLean

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 06/23/2013 06:35 PM, BartC wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>> Here's the situation.
    >>>
    >>> I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >>>
    >>> I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    >>> minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    >>> portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    >>> labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    >>> Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    >>> professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.

    >>
    >> Just avoid windows and move to a more developer friendly, anti-virus free,
    >> platform.

    >
    > Sure. Then you just have to persuade thousands of customers to do the same!


    No, that part's already been done. The number of people using
    non-windows platforms is measured at least in the millions. Whether it's
    measured in 10's of millions, or hundreds, I'm not sure, but the last
    time that the number of users of operating systems other than windows
    was measured in mere thousands was probably before windows itself was
    created.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Jun 24, 2013
    #8
  9. Malcolm McLean

    Lynn McGuire Guest

    On 6/23/2013 5:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
    > Here's the situation.
    >
    > I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    >
    > I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    > minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    > portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    > labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    > Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    > professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.
    >
    > Microsoft sell paid for C compilers, but they are too expensive for
    > hobby use. They offer Visual Studio Express. So I downloaded it. It's
    > a horrible thing and you have to fight it just to compile "hello world".
    > But it does the trick, as long as you only want to compile standard C
    > with a few Windows API calls.
    >
    > Now I wanted to write a snake game. Just a bit of fun. So I had to fight
    > it to put in the few amateur graphics - you have to edit the so-called
    > resource script by hand. However it won't link the PlaySound() function.
    > I can't get the beeps in. Now if a freebie hobby compiler isn't suitable
    > for "snake", what is it intended for?
    >
    > Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them because
    > of the virus threat.
    >
    > Now the Vista machine is getting long in the tooth. I thinking of replacing
    > it by Windows 8. But I feel so badly bitten by Microsoft, that I really
    > feel twice shy. But the reality is that most PCs still run Windows.
    >
    > I want to be able to write little programs like "snake", with graphics and
    > sound, and distribute them to people who want to play them. I don't have
    > vast sums to spend. What's the best way of achieving that end?


    www.openwatcom.org has a nice C and C++ compiler
    with a fairly primitive IDE.

    Lynn
    Lynn McGuire, Jun 24, 2013
    #9
  10. On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:36:55 AM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote:
    > On 06/23/2013 06:35 PM, BartC wrote:
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "Ian Collins" <> wrote in message

    >
    > > news:...

    >
    > >> Malcolm McLean wrote:

    >
    > >>> Here's the situation.

    >
    > >>>
    > >>> I'm using Windows. My desktop machine is Vista, my notebook runs XP.
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> I had a free compiler called tcc (tiny C compiler) which was small and
    > >>> minimal, but did most of what I wanted without fuss, which was to write
    > >>> portable commandline utilities. The anti virus broke it and started
    > >>> labelling the executables it produced. I had a nice paid for Visual
    > >>> Studio 6.0, but the personal version (cost about 60 quid) not the
    > >>> professional. Microsoft deliberately broke it.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Just avoid windows and move to a more developer friendly, anti-virus free,
    > >> platform.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Sure. Then you just have to persuade thousands of customers to do the same!

    >
    >
    >
    > No, that part's already been done. The number of people using
    > non-windows platforms is measured at least in the millions. Whether it's
    > measured in 10's of millions, or hundreds, I'm not sure, but the last
    > time that the number of users of operating systems other than windows
    > was measured in mere thousands was probably before windows itself was
    > created.
    >


    I downloaded an Android dev kit. I did get "hello world" running on it. But I've only 2GB of memory, and someone told me it needs 16. Certainly it ran far too slowly to be usable.
    But I'm replacing the Vista machine, so a 16GB job isn't out of the question.
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 24, 2013
    #10
  11. Malcolm McLean

    JohnF Guest

    Lynn McGuire <> wrote:
    > www.openwatcom.org has a nice C and C++ compiler
    > with a fairly primitive IDE. Lynn


    Thanks for that. Looks interesting, and I'll give it a try
    when time permits. Anybody have any remarks comparing
    experiences with mingw, djgpp, openwatcom (and other?) ?
    --
    John Forkosh ( mailto: where j=john and f=forkosh )
    JohnF, Jun 24, 2013
    #11
  12. Malcolm McLean

    BartC Guest

    "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them because
    > of the virus threat.


    So what do they use instead?

    I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some sort of
    executable is inevitable.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Jun 24, 2013
    #12
  13. Malcolm McLean

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, BartC wrote:
    > "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them because
    >> of the virus threat.

    >
    > So what do they use instead?
    >
    > I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some sort of
    > executable is inevitable.


    For something that's supposedly inevitable, it seems to have been
    avoided with considerable frequency.

    Most of the software that NASA pays my company to write for them is
    available exclusively as C (or in some cases, Fortran) source code at no
    charge to the public <https://modaps.nascom.nasa.gov:9500/software/>
    (though only after you've registered
    <https://modaps.nascom.nasa.gov:9500>, which requires faxing to us a
    signed copy of NASA's Software Usage Agreement). The third-party
    libraries it relies upon are entirely free and available as C (or C++)
    source code
    <http://newsroom.gsfc.nasa.gov/sdptoolkit/toolkit.html>,
    <http://www.hdfgroup.org/>; the same is true of much of the other
    software running on both my work and home computers.

    Disclaimer: I am not speaking in any official capacity as a
    representative of either my company or NASA.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Jun 24, 2013
    #13
  14. Malcolm McLean

    BartC Guest

    "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    news:kq9e16$b6m$...
    > On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, BartC wrote:
    >> "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them
    >>> because
    >>> of the virus threat.


    >> I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some sort
    >> of
    >> executable is inevitable.

    >
    > For something that's supposedly inevitable, it seems to have been
    > avoided with considerable frequency.
    >
    > Most of the software that NASA pays my company to write for them is
    > available exclusively as C (or in some cases, Fortran) source code at no
    > charge to the public


    Inevitable if you dismiss the other main options of distributing source
    code, or somehow using interpreters; end-users just want to play the game
    (or whatever the application does) not spend days trying to get something
    working. They shouldn't need to know what language is being used anyway, and
    besides the app might not be open source.

    In any case, you will still need *some* executables to do anything with the
    source code or byte code.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Jun 24, 2013
    #14
  15. Malcolm McLean

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 06/24/2013 09:34 AM, BartC wrote:
    > "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    > news:kq9e16$b6m$...
    >> On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, BartC wrote:
    >>> "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> Also I can't distribute the executables easily. Everyone bans them
    >>>> because
    >>>> of the virus threat.

    >
    >>> I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some sort
    >>> of
    >>> executable is inevitable.

    >>
    >> For something that's supposedly inevitable, it seems to have been
    >> avoided with considerable frequency.

    ....
    > Inevitable if you dismiss the other main options of distributing source
    > code, or somehow using interpreters;


    Well, anything can become inevitable, if you dismiss the alternatives.
    Failing to mention that your conclusion was dependent upon that
    dismissal gave your comment a very different meaning, in that context.
    You're now saying that "distributing source code, or somehow using
    interpreters" are "the main options"? That's almost exactly the opposite
    of the implications, in context, of your previous claim. Both claims are
    too extreme to match reality, which, as usual, messily decides to fall
    in between them.

    > ... end-users just want to play the game
    > (or whatever the application does) not spend days trying to get something
    > working. They shouldn't need to know what language is being used anyway, and
    > besides the app might not be open source.


    Well, of course you're unlikely to get source code if it isn't some form
    of "open source". But there's a awful lot of open source software out
    there nowadays.

    > In any case, you will still need *some* executables to do anything with the
    > source code or byte code.


    Well, of course. For that matter, you need some form of executable just
    to boot up the computer. But most software. open source or not, gets
    distributed without including all of the other software it needs before
    you can use it. OS distributions are the main exception to this rule,
    and I can't think of too many others.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Jun 24, 2013
    #15
  16. On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:34:48 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
    > "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Inevitable if you dismiss the other main options of distributing source
    > code, or somehow using interpreters; end-users just want to play the game
    > (or whatever the application does) not spend days trying to get something
    > working. They shouldn't need to know what language is being used anyway, and
    > besides the app might not be open source.
    >
    > In any case, you will still need *some* executables to do anything with the
    > source code or byte code.
    >

    It's a little game. I want to write it quickly and easily, and put it
    somewhere that players, who may well be children, can get it, play it
    for a few minutes, then move on to something else. If I can charge a few
    pence then that's fine, if I can't that's fine also.

    It's not intended as a hugely serious project.

    I've just downloaded jQuery. I'm seriously thinking of rewriting it in
    Javascript, purely because of Microsoft's attitude to developers like
    me. But it's a pity.
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 24, 2013
    #16
  17. Malcolm McLean

    BartC Guest

    "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    news:kq9jcn$92c$...
    > On 06/24/2013 09:34 AM, BartC wrote:
    >> "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:kq9e16$b6m$...
    >>> On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, BartC wrote:


    >>>> I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some
    >>>> sort
    >>>> of
    >>>> executable is inevitable.
    >>>
    >>> For something that's supposedly inevitable, it seems to have been
    >>> avoided with considerable frequency.

    > ...
    >> Inevitable if you dismiss the other main options of distributing source
    >> code, or somehow using interpreters;

    >
    > Well, anything can become inevitable, if you dismiss the alternatives.
    > Failing to mention that your conclusion was dependent upon that
    > dismissal gave your comment a very different meaning, in that context.
    > You're now saying that "distributing source code, or somehow using
    > interpreters" are "the main options"? That's almost exactly the opposite
    > of the implications, in context, of your previous claim. Both claims are
    > too extreme to match reality, which, as usual, messily decides to fall
    > in between them.


    Let's list all the options:

    o Self-contained binary
    o Source code
    o Byte-code
    o All the others

    For most practical purposes, for distributing programs to end-users to be
    actually executed, the binary method has to be *the* main one. The others
    might also be 'main' because they follow immediately in the list, but would
    normally be dismissed.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Jun 24, 2013
    #17
  18. On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:00:46 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
    >
    > Let's list all the options:
    >
    >
    > o Self-contained binary
    > o Source code
    > o Byte-code
    > o All the others
    >
    > For most practical purposes, for distributing programs to end-users to be
    > actually executed, the binary method has to be *the* main one. The others
    > might also be 'main' because they follow immediately in the list, but would
    > normally be dismissed.
    >

    I read one bioinformatics paper which was comparing sequence alignment
    algorithms. It mentioned that some methods had been excluded from the
    analysis because they were too difficult to install and run. These were
    people with doctorates in a computer-related discipline, doing something
    as their full time job of work.
    For the casual user, it's got to be click and go. He just can't be fiddling
    about wit paths and make scripts and other odds and ends.
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 25, 2013
    #18
  19. Malcolm McLean

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 06/24/2013 06:00 PM, BartC wrote:
    >
    >
    > "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    > news:kq9jcn$92c$...
    >> On 06/24/2013 09:34 AM, BartC wrote:
    >>> "James Kuyper" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:kq9e16$b6m$...
    >>>> On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, BartC wrote:

    >
    >>>>> I think if you want to use C, then distribution in the form of some
    >>>>> sort
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> executable is inevitable.

    ....
    > o Self-contained binary
    > o Source code
    > o Byte-code
    > o All the others
    >
    > For most practical purposes, for distributing programs to end-users to be
    > actually executed, the binary method has to be *the* main one. The others
    > might also be 'main' because they follow immediately in the list, but would
    > normally be dismissed.


    That's more reasonable, by reason of being less extreme, than your
    original claim that distribution as an executable was "inevitable". Your
    use of "most practical purposes", "main one", and "normally" all bring
    it into closer alignment with reality.
    James Kuyper, Jun 26, 2013
    #19
  20. Malcolm McLean

    Guest

    False positive detections can happen with any compiler.
    I remember that using Visual C++ 2002 it use msvcrt71.dll (i not remember well), but with a hexadecimal editor i change it for use msvcrt.dll, this text was detected by some antivirus, i remember letting the reference only as "msvcrt"

    I use tiny c as my compiler, and i modified some thing from the source code (tccpe.c and chkstk.S) in some scenarios for avoid some false detections.

    Solve false positives for all antivirus is a fight, and nothing assure that if you bypass today all detections, in a month it continue.

    With tiny c you can link for use the function PlaySound, i do it.

    using tiny c sometimes you need some macros definitions from files .h of mingw.
    For example: PlaySound uses mmsystem.h (but if you look it from mingw folder (c:\Mingw) you can copy some macros):

    #include <windows.h>

    #define SND_SYNC 0
    #define SND_NODEFAULT 2
    #define SND_FILENAME 0x20000

    int main(int argc, char ** argv)
    {
    if (argc > 1) {
    PlaySound("C:\\Windows\\Media\\chimes.wav", NULL, SND_FILENAME | SND_SYNC | SND_NODEFAULT);
    }

    return 0;

    }

    for link you need run this commands:

    cd /d c:\tcc\
    tiny_impdef.exe c:\windows\system32\winmm.dll
    move winmm.def lib
    tcc.exe source.c -lwinmm


    For insert resources in the executable generated by tcc.exe I use program called Resource Hacker for insert the resources.
    , Jul 25, 2013
    #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. Merlin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    951
    Merlin
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Merlin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    989
    Merlin
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Brendan Duffy

    Re: distributing programs on server

    Brendan Duffy, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    866
    Brendan Duffy
    Jul 25, 2003
  4. NEWS

    Distributing Python programs

    NEWS, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    445
    Graham
    Jan 29, 2004
  5. Jason

    Distributing programs

    Jason, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    350
    Magnus Lycka
    Oct 4, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page