Read a file line by line and write each line to a file based on the5th byte

[Jerry Coffin]

* James Kanze:

[ ... ]

Anybody serious about programming.

Not even close.

It's a good idea to have the code compile with at least two compilers.

While reasonable in itself, that's not an argument in favor of g++. One
of the two should normally be the system's "native" compiler (VC++, in
the case of Windows). If you honestly care about the quality of your
code, the second compiler should Comeau -- g++ is sadly deficient by
comparison.

 

[James Kanze]

* James Kanze:

* James Kanze:

[...]

Not just for reasons of having a [] which crashes. (I'm
less sure about VC++, but pre-4.0 g++ didn't have fully
standard name look-up.)
The lastest version of g++ for Windows is AFAIK 3.4.5.

Whose last version?
MSys has a 4.3.0, qualified "Testing"; the last stable
version is 3.4.5, as you say, but a newer version is
available. Cygwin has 4.3.2 (plus a lot of others); I'm
unable to find any statement concerning what they consider
"stable". I don't know about the others.
But who'd want to use g++ under Windows anyway.

Anybody serious about programming.

I consider myself serious about programming, but what little
work I do under Windows is purely with VC++.

It's a good idea to have the code compile with at least two
compilers.

There's that, of course---ideally, the second compiler would be
Comeau, regardless of the platform. (Still no need for g++.)

Of course, the same reasoning applies to OS's---it's a good idea
to ensure that your code can work under two different OS's. And
given the price of Linux, and the fact that it will dual boot
with Windows, there's no real reason not to.

But of course, the same reasoning applies to architectures. I
generally ensure that my code compiles (and runs) on a Sparc, as
well as both 32 and 64 bit Intel---I'd like to have more
possibilities, but it's not that easy. (A mainframe is a
bit out of my budget at home, and my employer doesn't supply
one, so I'm stuck with nothing but IEEE floating point.)

Of course, some applications really are single platform.

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* James Kanze:

* James Kanze:

* James Kanze:
[...]
Not just for reasons of having a [] which crashes. (I'm
less sure about VC++, but pre-4.0 g++ didn't have fully
standard name look-up.)
The lastest version of g++ for Windows is AFAIK 3.4.5.
Whose last version?
MSys has a 4.3.0, qualified "Testing"; the last stable
version is 3.4.5, as you say, but a newer version is
available. Cygwin has 4.3.2 (plus a lot of others); I'm
unable to find any statement concerning what they consider
"stable". I don't know about the others.
But who'd want to use g++ under Windows anyway.

Anybody serious about programming.

I consider myself serious about programming, but what little
work I do under Windows is purely with VC++.

Well. It stands to reason that *someone* must be using the second most used
compiler on the platform, i.e., that your choice is not representative.

There's that, of course---ideally, the second compiler would be
Comeau, regardless of the platform. (Still no need for g++.)

No, don't get hung up on the "two", focus on the "at least".

Comeau tests standard-conformance only.

One main reason you need two or more compilers is that compilers aren't
standard-conforming.

Testing with Comeau only, doesn't ensure your code will work with g++.

Testing with g++ does help in that direction.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Jerry Coffin:

* James Kanze:

[ ... ]

Anybody serious about programming.

Not even close.

It's a good idea to have the code compile with at least two compilers.

While reasonable in itself, that's not an argument in favor of g++. One
of the two should normally be the system's "native" compiler (VC++, in
the case of Windows). If you honestly care about the quality of your
code, the second compiler should Comeau -- g++ is sadly deficient by
comparison.

No (and by the way, I don't accept "the second", it's just silly).

See reply to James else-thread.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf