Good shareware compiler for C?

[Randy Howard]

Suggestions:

a)There are a number of ports of gcc that will work. Other posters will
suggest them, I'm sure.

Indeed. For a free compiler, you can't beat it, and there are
certainly some out there that are far worse, some mentioned in this
thread.

b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.

For very narrowly defined definitions of "C".

c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.

"Basic debugging capabilities" /probably/ means an IDE with integrated
debugger in 2007, although plenty of us old-timers prefer other
methods.

 

[Randy Howard]

As far as I am concerned it is useless. Claims to require W2000
up, and I won't let those on my hardware, due to the EULA. Stick
with some version of GCC.

Better yet, buy a Mac mini for cheap, and run the free (and built into
the install DVD) Xcode front-end to gcc, which is very nice, has all
the standard GUI features you might expect, and runs on a stable OS.

 

[Chris Saunders]

I don't know if it works on other platforms other than Windows but Pelles C
is excellent and free.
If I recall correctly it has some support for C99.

Regards
Chris Saunders

 

[Default User]

I don't know if it works on other platforms other than Windows but
Pelles C is excellent and free. If I recall correctly it has some
support for C99.

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.

I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.

--
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

 

[Serve Laurijssen]

I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.

that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?

 

[Keith Thompson]

that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?

Nobody, as long as the programmer is aware that the extensions are
non-standard.

 

[jacob navia]

Serve Laurijssen a écrit :

that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?

Let's not polemic because of a stupid comment from an anonymous coward.
(unless he really is called "rbhlgjwbvi" of course

Anyway Mr Mcintyre only knows about polemic. No substantive arguments
anywhere.

Personally I try to avoid this discussions because they lead to nothing
productive.

Thanks for your comments.

jacob

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Personally I try to avoid this discussions because they lead to nothing
productive.

Hilarious.
--
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

 

[brandon.m.skinner]

Since you are on Windows, I would recommend Pelles C. It runs using
the LCC compiler, and in my opinion, is quite a bit better than
lcc-win32.

Pelles C - http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

Also, if you are just looking for a compiler, I heartily recommend
OpenWatcom. It is fantastic for both C++ and C. It gets rid of alot of
overhead for the STL(C++), and it has many optimization options. It is
just as good, if not better than gcc/g++ on Windows, and it is
ofcourse, open source. Plus it runs as a replacement for Microsoft's
C++ compiler(it has the same cmd name), just incase you need that too.

OpenWatcom - http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download

Good luck anyways.

 

[Chris Saunders]

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to have
to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been following the
conversation. I have read and disagree the site in the URL you posted.
Fortunatly for you, I will not be sending messages frequently to this group
but thought I could be helpful to the person I was responding to.

Regards
Chris Saunders

 

[Keith Thompson]

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

Even if you think that top-posting is better for some reason, surely
you can realize that consistency is important.

 

[Default User]

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

*plonk*


Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Saunders said:

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to
have to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been
following the conversation.

How annoying did you find this reply? How much of this post did you have to
scroll through?

Removal of irrelevant ex-context renders scrolling unnecessary in short
replies. In a long reply, you'd have to scroll *anyway*, and putting each
counter-point after the point to which it pertains is a simple courtesy
designed to *minimise* scrolling (from point to counter-point,
counter-point to next point, next point to next counter-point, etc).

<snip>

 

[Chris Saunders]

Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would. However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.

Regards
Chris Saunders

 

[CBFalconer]

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it
annoying to have to scroll through a post to read the responce
when I have been following the conversation. I have read and
disagree the site in the URL yo7u posted. Fortunatly for you,
I will not be sending messages frequently to this group but
thought I could be helpful to the person I was responding to.

And when you do you won't be noticed. PLONK

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[Chris Hills]

Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.

The rules of this and most Usenet News Group prohibit top posting. It
is the sign of a civilised society that its members stick to the rule so
of that community.

However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this.

Others are asking you to conform to the rules of this NG

I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with.

Then leave the group that has this rule as part of the community.
(Which is most Usenet NG's


Just for once we agree , Keith

 

[Flash Gordon]

Chris Saunders wrote, On 21/01/07 08:51:

Rude top posting fixed.

Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

Look at the posts in this group and you will see that yours are
inconsistent with the majority of the posts in this group.

I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.

Well, most people here wish you would not top post. Why should the
wishes of the one outweigh the wishes of the many?

However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.

If you continue top-posting it is unlikely you will get any help from
the majority of C experts here.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.

I am sure Keith Thompson meant consistency between all posters to a
group. If everyone one did as you want (top post with full quote)
then the discussion *can* be followed but what is lost is the ability
to see to what part of a post a poster is replying.

An interleaved reply contains more information. The comments are
properly in context. With good snipping, and/or a good reader that can
fold quotes (i.e. hide/show then at a stroke) no more scrolling is
required.

You can choose to:

(a) Mess up the logical order of a thread by doing what you want and not
what others do in this group.

(b) Fit in for the common good.

I am not, by nature, inclined to "fit in" but I reserve my right to be
different for issues that really matter.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would. However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.

Agreed.

Oh, and, in case there's any doubt, "Keith" and "Default Loser" are
known anal retentive idiots. Just ignore them (hopefully they will go
away). In any case, they never have anything interesting to say, and
nothing is lost by simply ignoring them.