New to C language - HELP Required

[sri]

Hi
I am new to C language. Still I am using Turbo C++ 3 Compiler. Any
New version is available for Windows XP platforms. Borland releases C++
5.5 Command line tools.

Is There any New C Compiler software is available.....



Thanks for the maintaining the C- Gorup.

 

[Phlip]

Is There any New C Compiler software is available.....

Get CygWin (then read a BASH tutorial), then use gcc. You will get a
high-end compiler with minimal hassle. Oh, also a minimal editor and an evil
debugger. And note that much of learning C means learning how to work its
environment, linkers, makefiles, etc.

Further questions about specific compilers will get the best answers on
their specific newsgroups. This group is only qualified to discuss
platform-neutral aspects of the language itself, not its various libraries
and tools.

 

[Nick Keighley]

sri wrote:

Get CygWin (then read a BASH tutorial), then use gcc. You will get a
high-end compiler with minimal hassle. Oh, also a minimal editor and an evil
debugger. And note that much of learning C means learning how to work its
environment, linkers, makefiles, etc.

sounds like a hard way to do things. "I want C compiler for Windows XP"
"ok
go and run an emulation to make XP look like Unix, then learn an arcane
shell
scripting language, then get a C compiler".

try bloodshed www.bloodshed.net it is also gcc based, has a reasonable
IDE
and editor but a rather ropey debugger :-(

There may be better options, I just thought that Phlip had turned the
learning
curve into a cliff so I was pointing out there was at least one other
option.

Further questions about specific compilers will get the best answers on
their specific newsgroups. This group is only qualified to discuss
platform-neutral aspects of the language itself, not its various libraries
and tools.

yeah, true

 

[jmcgill]

sounds like a hard way to do things.

I would argue that it makes a great many things very easy.

Someone who is biased to the point of being resistant to the idea of
these particular tools will not be persuaded to use them, and that won't
be my problem unless they are working for me (in a shop where the cygwin
environment is required.)

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Get CygWin (then read a BASH tutorial), then use gcc. You will get a
high-end compiler with minimal hassle. Oh, also a minimal editor and an evil
debugger. And note that much of learning C means learning how to work its
environment, linkers, makefiles, etc.

Cygwin is a huge investment for someone just trying to run a C program
or two. Surely lcc-win32 is a better option for OP than having to
learn Bash just to run the compiler.

 

[Skarmander]

Get CygWin (then read a BASH tutorial), then use gcc.

If it's gcc for Windows you want, MinGW is much less heavy. Cygwin's main
perk is the ability to easily port Unix/POSIX software to Windows. MinGW is
less suitable for that task, but it doesn't require you to completely
Unixify your system. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)

Alternatively, Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express includes a C++ and C
compiler with a nice visual development environment to work in, and is
arguably the least amount of hassle for those used to Windows GUIs.
(Obligatory flaming of the Evil Empire to /dev/null, please.) I must confess
I don't know how good the C compiler is, though, and I do know you need to
put in a bit of effort to ignore all the stuff you won't want to use (C++
and the CLR extensions).

S.

 

[jmcgill]

Cygwin is a huge investment for someone just trying to run a C program
or two.

Getting a car is a huge investment for someone who just wants to drive
to work and back once a day and maybe one or two shopping trips per week.

Surely lcc-win32 is a better option for OP than having to
learn Bash just to run the compiler.

Maybe. Or maybe learning a POSIX compliant shell and a version of GCC
will be a more beneficial undertaking in the long run than some random
single-developer compiler project that you happen know about.

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Maybe. Or maybe learning a POSIX compliant shell and a version of GCC
will be a more beneficial undertaking in the long run than some random
single-developer compiler project that you happen know about.

Maybe, or maybe OP has no reason to ever care about knowing Bash. In
many places developers go weeks without seeing a Bash prompt.
Depending on OP's experience and goals, Cygwin may very well turn out
to be a gigantic waste of time. At least you might have mentioned the
MinGW port of GCC, which can let OP use a quality compiler without
simultaneously plunging into a Unix emulator.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Getting a car is a huge investment for someone who just wants to drive
to work and back once a day and maybe one or two shopping trips per
week.


Maybe. Or maybe learning a POSIX compliant shell and a version of GCC
will be a more beneficial undertaking in the long run than some random
single-developer compiler project that you happen know about.

I like Cygwin; in fact I'm using it right now. But telling someone to
install Cygwin is not a particularly good answer for someone who just
wants to compile C programs under Windows XP, particularly when there
are a number of compilers that work directly under XP with no
emulation layer.

This is not the place to advocate Unix or Unix-like environments.

Cygwin with gcc is certainly an option. But since the OP's question
is about obtaining compilers, not about the C language, he'd probably
get better information in a Windows-specific newsgroup.

 

[jmcgill]

I like Cygwin; in fact I'm using it right now. But telling someone to
install Cygwin is not a particularly good answer for someone who just
wants to compile C programs under Windows XP

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Keith Thompson]

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

.... in a newsgroup where horses and/or water are topical.

 

[Ark]

If it's gcc for Windows you want, MinGW is much less heavy. Cygwin's
main perk is the ability to easily port Unix/POSIX software to Windows.
MinGW is less suitable for that task, but it doesn't require you to
completely Unixify your system. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)

Alternatively, Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express includes a C++ and C
compiler with a nice visual development environment to work in, and is
arguably the least amount of hassle for those used to Windows GUIs.
(Obligatory flaming of the Evil Empire to /dev/null, please.) I must
confess I don't know how good the C compiler is, though, and I do know
you need to put in a bit of effort to ignore all the stuff you won't
want to use (C++ and the CLR extensions).

S.

I agree: MS VC++ is a great torture chamber for a nascent C programmer.
The C face of it is not compliant to any particular standard other than
MS's own (vaguely based on C90). And that's good since part of C
programming is dealing with your compiler's quirks. On the other hand,
the debugger has long been very good.
- Ark

 

[Jack Klein]

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

Remember, most horses being led to water have one thing in view...

....the horse's ass in front of them, horses being gregarious.

 

[Skarmander]

I agree: MS VC++ is a great torture chamber for a nascent C programmer.
The C face of it is not compliant to any particular standard other than
MS's own (vaguely based on C90).

That bad, huh?

And that's good since part of C programming is dealing with your
compiler's quirks. On the other hand, the debugger has long been very
good.

I see how it wouldn't be my environment of choice. Nevertheless, if you want
to write "hello, world" using a GUI, it might be of some use.

S.

 

[Chris Hills]

Get CygWin (then read a BASH tutorial), then use gcc. You will get a
high-end compiler with minimal hassle.

well that is crap.

Oh, also a minimal editor and an evil
debugger.

so it is not a high end system than Certainly not as good as Turbo C

And note that much of learning C means learning how to work its
environment, linkers, makefiles, etc.

SO why use cygwn and gcc? Why not use a decrent system?

Further questions about specific compilers will get the best answers on
their specific newsgroups.

Yes.

This group is only qualified to discuss
platform-neutral aspects of the language itself, not its various libraries
and tools.

Complete crap. you may only be qualified for that the rest of us can do
a lot more.

 

[Chris Hills]

I agree: MS VC++ is a great torture chamber for a nascent C programmer.
The C face of it is not compliant to any particular standard other than
MS's own (vaguely based on C90).

Most compilers are. Those that are C99 are very few and far between.

 

[Nick Keighley]

I would argue that it makes a great many things very easy.

Someone who is biased to the point of being resistant to the idea of
these particular tools will not be persuaded to use them, and that won't
be my problem unless they are working for me (in a shop where the cygwin
environment is required.)

I use both Unix and Windows. If I worked for you (I doubt we'd get on)
and cygwin
was the environment then I'd use it, without a problem. But you don't
need to
learn Unix to run a C compiler.


--
Nick Keighley

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."
William of Ockham (ca.1285-1349)

 

[Keith Thompson]

Most compilers are. Those that are C99 are very few and far between.

I think the emphasis is on the word "vaguely". Most C compilers these
days conform to C90 reasonably well. (I'm not familiar enough with MS
VC++ to know how well it conforms to C90.)

 

[Simon Biber]

Cygwin is a huge investment for someone just trying to run a C program
or two. Surely lcc-win32 is a better option for OP than having to
learn Bash just to run the compiler.

Off-topic, but you don't need to learn bash to run gcc in Cygwin. I use
Cygwin's gcc a lot, but rarely run Cygwin's bash. I use it from the
Windows command shell, cmd.

I just have a collection of little batch files that allow me to use each
compiler from within cmd:

C:\>type cyg.bat
@echo off
set PATH=%PATH%;C:\cygwin\bin;c:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin

C:\>type bcc.bat
@echo off
set PATH=C:\Borland\BCC55\Bin;%PATH%

C:\>type djgpp.bat
@echo off
set PATH=c:\djgpp\bin;%PATH%
set DJGPP=c:\djgpp\djgpp.env

vsvars32.bat as supplied by Microsoft is a fair bit longer and has all
sorts of environment variables to set, but the effect is the same;
cl.exe becomes available in my path and the compiler works.

I also had ones for LCC-Win32 and Turbo C but they're not installed on
this machine.

The only things that don't work automatically are shell scripts like
ps2pdf, for which I must type bash before the script name:

C:\>bash ps2pdf example.ps

 

[Default User]

Ark wrote:

I agree: MS VC++ is a great torture chamber for a nascent C
programmer. The C face of it is not compliant to any particular
standard other than MS's own (vaguely based on C90). And that's good
since part of C programming is dealing with your compiler's quirks.
On the other hand, the debugger has long been very good. - Ark

What specific non-compliance issues with C90 have you found?



Brian