Pallas_something_ C99 IDE/Compiler

[Ioannis Vranos]

Hi,

there was a C99 IDE/compiler for Windows, called something like "Pallas
C" but I did not recall its name.


Does anyone know its name?


Thanks.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Hi,

there was a C99 IDE/compiler for Windows, called something like "Pallas
C" but I did not recall its name.


Does anyone know its name?

.... or know some other decent free C99 IDE & compiler for Windows, apart
from Bloodshed Dev-C++ which is outdated?


Thanks,

 

[Kenny McCormack]

... or know some other decent free C99 IDE & compiler for Windows, apart
from Bloodshed Dev-C++ which is outdated?

I think you are thinking of "Pelles C".

There's also Jacob's LCC-WIN (but of course, none of the he-men around
here will ever claim anything other than that it is crap, because they
don't like Jacob)

--
Windows 95 n. (Win-doze): A 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for
an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company
that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Modern day upgrade --> Windows XP Professional x64: Windows is now a 64 bit
tweak of a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for an 8 bit
operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that
can't stand 1 bit of competition.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

I think you are thinking of "Pelles C".

Yes that's it. Thanks a lot.

 

[luserXtrog]

... or know some other decent free C99 IDE & compiler for Windows, apart
from Bloodshed Dev-C++ which is outdated?

How about cygwin?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

How about cygwin?

Main objection: no IDE. (no, vim is not an IDE...)

Also, cygwin is nice (very nice, indeed) *if* your goal is to take Unix
code (that uses all the nifty Unix things [*] like sockets and so on) and
port it to Windows. It's not so great for native Windows development.

[*] All those things we are not allowed to talk about here.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

 

[Tom St Denis]

Main objection: no IDE.  (no, vim is not an IDE...)

Also, cygwin is nice (very nice, indeed) *if* your goal is to take Unix
code (that uses all the nifty Unix things [*] like sockets and so on) and
port it to Windows.  It's not so great for native Windows development.

[*] All those things we are not allowed to talk about here.

I like your REGular posts here. Nice to see a reg telling it like it
is.

Tom

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Also, cygwin is nice (very nice, indeed) *if* your goal is to take Unix
code (that uses all the nifty Unix things [*] like sockets and so on) and
port it to Windows.  It's not so great for native Windows development.

The problem is that you end up pulling in cygwin just to read the
contents of a directory.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Also, cygwin is nice (very nice, indeed) *if* your goal is to take Unix
code (that uses all the nifty Unix things [*] like sockets and so on) and
port it to Windows.  It's not so great for native Windows development.

The problem is that you end up pulling in cygwin just to read the
contents of a directory.

(I think you are agreeing with me)

Incidentally, some nitpickers will come along and point out that if you
compile with -mnocygwin (I think), then you get, well, no Cygwin.

But as I said, if you are developing from scratch, for Windows, cygwin
is probably not a good choice. Ditto for MinGW. Both of these *are* good
choices if your code base is already Unix-y.

 

[Felix Palmen]

But as I said, if you are developing from scratch, for Windows, cygwin
is probably not a good choice. Ditto for MinGW. Both of these *are* good
choices if your code base is already Unix-y.

They're also good choices if you just write portable code, using
portable libraries and you want to use e.g. the GNU autotools to build
it. For NOT accidentally pulling in a "unix emulator" library, I prefer
mingw over cygwin.

Regards,
Felix

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Try the MinGW Developer Studio:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vaultec/mingwstudio.php

the "Experimental" version comes with GCC 4.5.0 and GDB 7.1

This is also interesting to me. Thanks.

 

[Peter Nilsson]

there was a C99 IDE/compiler for Windows, called something
like "Pallas C" but I did not recall its name.

Does anyone know its name?

<http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=pallas+c+compiler>

 

[Nick Keighley]

On 28 Sep, 14:55, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

But as I said, if you are developing from scratch, for Windows, cygwin
is probably not a good choice.  Ditto for MinGW.  Both of these *are* good
choices if your code base is already Unix-y.

I've written Windows code using MinGW/Bloodshed

 

[Nick Keighley]

... or know some other decent free C99 IDE & compiler for Windows,

Microsoft's "Visual C++ Express". Which despite the daft name actually
includes a reasonable C compiler

 

[Malcolm McLean]

What do you mean "reasonable"? How is it only "reasonable"?

Gcc is a good C compiler because it runs on Linux, which superior
people use.

(There's also a serious issue, Gates bans the use of VC++xp for
programs with "viral" licences, which is an attempt to attack the open
source movement).

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

Gcc is a good C compiler because it runs on Linux, which superior
people use.

That statement is wrong on so many levels it is funny.

(There's also a serious issue, Gates bans the use of VC++xp for
programs with "viral" licences, which is an attempt to attack the open
source movement).

I thought Gates != Microsoft any more? I though he has effectively
retired over the last year or two to spend his billions on good works? I
doubt he has been involved in anything as low level as banning the use
of VC++xp for use with viral program for years anyway. He would be at
the strategic level working out which company's/countries to buy/crush
etc.

Besides most of the Open Source fraternity spend their lives attacking
Microsoft so it is not exactly a one sided battle

One of the better x86 compilers was the Borland one. Though the OP
asked for C99 but I doubt you are going to find any C99 compilers about.
NO ONE USES C99 (well not seriously)

The best compiler for doing MS windows apps is going to be the MS
compilers. ISO language Standards don't come into it. The MS compilers
will match the MS Windows environment. If MS is non standard in their
compilers it is because the MS Windows API will expect that.

On the other hand the best compiler for developing on Linux is GCC
because both follow the same standard (which is not ISO C90, 95 or 99)

Horses for courses.

 

[Shao Miller]

... or know some other decent free C99 IDE & compiler for Windows, apart
from Bloodshed Dev-C++ which is outdated?

You and Bloodshed Dev-C++ back in 2000[1], just stumbled upon by
co-incidence a moment ago.

I sometimes enjoy both Bloodshed Dev-C++ as well as wxDev-C++[2] (an
extension) when doing development for the Windows XP platform. At other
times, simply 'gedit' and the Windows Driver Development Kit's CLI
environment do just fine.

Perhaps you'd enjoy some of those, too.

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...ead/bae28e0b9699d210/b0fdf012c5cb9156?lnk=gst
[2] http://wxdsgn.sourceforge.net/

 

[Jorgen Grahn]

Gcc is a good C compiler because it runs on Linux, which superior
people use.

(There's also a serious issue, Gates bans the use of VC++xp for
programs with "viral" licences, which is an attempt to attack the open
source movement).

You're saying you're not allowed to use it to compile e.g. GPL:ed
code, right? Do you have a reference? I think I would have heard about
that (even though I'm a superior Linux user myself ...)

/Jorgen