I have Dev-C++ 4.9.9.2 installed, it was working very well for several days and for no apparent reason it simply stopped running C compiled files. It still compiles fine and I can launch the .exe file manually.
This is the only version I've used. I have tried it with antivirus on-access protection turned off and also by re-writing the code from scratch.
I'm using Windows XP SP2, Pentium D 3.4GHz, 2GB SDRAM. Suggestions?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Before you draw any conclusions you need to be quite clear what you are talking about.
> DEV-C++, Lcc-win32 and Borland's C++ 5.5 seem to fit the mold
> somewhat...vaguely keeping to ANSI C standards.
Dev-C++ is not a compiler (neither is C-Free), they are both IDEs. The compiler is independent, and both can use GCC, in the case of Dev-C++ that is all it is designed to use, wheras C-Free can use multiple compilers.
Dev-C++ is generally installed with MinGW GCC 3.4.2 which is OK but not the latest GCC version. Note that MinGW uses Microsoft's C runtime library rather than GNU's static C library.
GCC's ISO compliance (note ISO is the standards body for the language since 1990, not ANSI) I would suggest is 'strong' and not in any way 'vague'.
The Borland compiler on the other hand is probably amongst the least compliant, and its project wizards have a habit of inserting non-portable code and directives that are easily coded out, but which otherwise tie you to their tools. That sais Microsoft's wizards do the same, I always start with an empty project rather than let the IDE lock me in.
Lcc I have little experience with, but would not touch anything that was only a C compiler. Coding in C rather than C++ is like fighting with one arm.
> I have MSVC++ 2008 Express edition, MSVS Pro 2008 and MSVC++ 2005...all
> of them bloated and very Microslothish not unlike their OSs...
I don't think that matters much on a modern PC, they provide a huge ammount of functionality in that 'bloat' - most significantly a working debugger, if you don't think you need a debugger and do not use one, you are probably more than halving your productivity, or drastically reducing the quality of your code.
I would say that MSVC++ 2005 and 2008 have superior or at least as good ISO C++ compliance as GCC 3.x, but the C compiler has not changed much since MSVC 6.0, but then neither has the language. For C compilation MSVC++ does not support ISO C99 and is not likley to do so in the future. GCC on the other hand has some support for C99, but it is reare amongst C compilers in that. Many C99 features are best avoided or can be provided by library/header support.
It is true that if you want to use the Express Edition's Visual GUI design (Windows Forms) support that you need to use C++/CLI extensions, but with Dev-C++ you get no such design support in any case, so you have lost nothing in that respect. If you want native GUI tools consider wxDevCpp, a Dev-C++ derivative with visual development and a GUI class library (wxWidgets), as well as support for Microsoft command line tools as a back-end alternative to GCC.
> to be honest I'm thinking seriously about bailing on Windows in
> general and simply using gcc and build-essential on Ubuntu or
> Debian Linux until the course is over.
To be sure that that is the right decision for you, I suggest that you initially play with it in a VM using VMWare Server (free) for example.
Clifford
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
int num_1, num_2, sum, difference, product, quotient, remainder;
num_1 = 63;
num_2 = 25;
sum = num_1 + num_2;
difference = num_1 - num_2;
product = num_1 * num_2;
quotient = num_1 / num_2;
remainder = num_1 % num_2;
printf ("This program will do some computations.\n\n");
printf ("The two numbers used by this program are 63 and 25.\n\n");
printf ("The sum of %i and %i is %i\n", num_1, num_2, sum);
printf ("The difference of %i and %i is %i\n", num_1, num_2, difference);
printf ("The product of %i and %i is %i\n", num_1, num_2, product);
printf ("The quotient of %i and %i is %i with remainder %i\n\n", num_1, num_2, quotient, remainder);
printf ("Thanks for using the program.\n");
getchar( );
}
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It is assumed that you will have read "PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING A QUESTION" on the basis that you actually posted. It clearly advises against spaces in project paths for exactly this reason.
Clifford
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I saw the recommendation not to install the program using paths with spaces such as C:\program files... prior to installing but not the one mentioned until I looked further under "Other General Observations" outside of the FAQ's pages...my bad. It works now and saved me from a purchase of C-Free 4.1.
TrakerJon
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
C-Free is a strange name for a paid-for program, but I cannot see why anyone would buy it when there are plenty of free alternatives, for example: Code::Blocks, Eclipse, MSVC++ 2008 Express, wxDevCpp.
Besides C-Free is merely an IDE like Dev-C++, you still have to provide a toolchain, and the space issue is not only down to the IDE but also the GNU toolchain.
The only one of the above that I'd be prepared to guarantee is totally space agnostic is MSVC++ 2008 Express edition.
Clifford
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree, something named C-Free should probably be "free" for more than 30 days, although it does what I need it to do (but not for long at $60). Anyway, I'm taking an ANSI C programming class this fall and there are very few "free" Windows based IDE compilers that have the functionality I was looking for regarding my coursework. DEV-C++, Lcc-win32 and Borland's C++ 5.5 seem to fit the mold somewhat...vaguely keeping to ANSI C standards.
I have MSVC++ 2008 Express edition, MSVS Pro 2008 and MSVC++ 2005...all of them bloated and very Microslothish not unlike their OSs...to be honest I'm thinking seriously about bailing on Windows in general and simply using gcc and build-essential on Ubuntu or Debian Linux until the course is over.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Please note that some of the tools that Clifford mentioned, including CodeBlocks and
wxDevCPP use the GCC compiler, and have been ongoing development efforts. They
are basically everything you want in Dev, but better.
Wayne
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have Dev-C++ 4.9.9.2 installed, it was working very well for several days and for no apparent reason it simply stopped running C compiled files. It still compiles fine and I can launch the .exe file manually.
This is the only version I've used. I have tried it with antivirus on-access protection turned off and also by re-writing the code from scratch.
I'm using Windows XP SP2, Pentium D 3.4GHz, 2GB SDRAM. Suggestions?
Before you draw any conclusions you need to be quite clear what you are talking about.
> DEV-C++, Lcc-win32 and Borland's C++ 5.5 seem to fit the mold
> somewhat...vaguely keeping to ANSI C standards.
Dev-C++ is not a compiler (neither is C-Free), they are both IDEs. The compiler is independent, and both can use GCC, in the case of Dev-C++ that is all it is designed to use, wheras C-Free can use multiple compilers.
Dev-C++ is generally installed with MinGW GCC 3.4.2 which is OK but not the latest GCC version. Note that MinGW uses Microsoft's C runtime library rather than GNU's static C library.
GCC's ISO compliance (note ISO is the standards body for the language since 1990, not ANSI) I would suggest is 'strong' and not in any way 'vague'.
The Borland compiler on the other hand is probably amongst the least compliant, and its project wizards have a habit of inserting non-portable code and directives that are easily coded out, but which otherwise tie you to their tools. That sais Microsoft's wizards do the same, I always start with an empty project rather than let the IDE lock me in.
Lcc I have little experience with, but would not touch anything that was only a C compiler. Coding in C rather than C++ is like fighting with one arm.
> I have MSVC++ 2008 Express edition, MSVS Pro 2008 and MSVC++ 2005...all
> of them bloated and very Microslothish not unlike their OSs...
I don't think that matters much on a modern PC, they provide a huge ammount of functionality in that 'bloat' - most significantly a working debugger, if you don't think you need a debugger and do not use one, you are probably more than halving your productivity, or drastically reducing the quality of your code.
I would say that MSVC++ 2005 and 2008 have superior or at least as good ISO C++ compliance as GCC 3.x, but the C compiler has not changed much since MSVC 6.0, but then neither has the language. For C compilation MSVC++ does not support ISO C99 and is not likley to do so in the future. GCC on the other hand has some support for C99, but it is reare amongst C compilers in that. Many C99 features are best avoided or can be provided by library/header support.
It is true that if you want to use the Express Edition's Visual GUI design (Windows Forms) support that you need to use C++/CLI extensions, but with Dev-C++ you get no such design support in any case, so you have lost nothing in that respect. If you want native GUI tools consider wxDevCpp, a Dev-C++ derivative with visual development and a GUI class library (wxWidgets), as well as support for Microsoft command line tools as a back-end alternative to GCC.
> to be honest I'm thinking seriously about bailing on Windows in
> general and simply using gcc and build-essential on Ubuntu or
> Debian Linux until the course is over.
To be sure that that is the right decision for you, I suggest that you initially play with it in a VM using VMWare Server (free) for example.
Clifford
Compiler: Default compiler
Executing gcc.exe...
gcc.exe "C:\Programming in C\assignment 1\savagep1.c" -o "C:\Programming in C\assignment 1\savagep1.exe" -I"C:\Dev-Cpp\include" -L"C:\Dev-Cpp\lib"
Execution terminated
Compilation successful
include <stdio.h>
main()
{
}
> C:\Programming in C\assignment 1\
It is assumed that you will have read "PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING A QUESTION" on the basis that you actually posted. It clearly advises against spaces in project paths for exactly this reason.
Clifford
Thanks Cliff,
I saw the recommendation not to install the program using paths with spaces such as C:\program files... prior to installing but not the one mentioned until I looked further under "Other General Observations" outside of the FAQ's pages...my bad. It works now and saved me from a purchase of C-Free 4.1.
TrakerJon
C-Free is a strange name for a paid-for program, but I cannot see why anyone would buy it when there are plenty of free alternatives, for example: Code::Blocks, Eclipse, MSVC++ 2008 Express, wxDevCpp.
Besides C-Free is merely an IDE like Dev-C++, you still have to provide a toolchain, and the space issue is not only down to the IDE but also the GNU toolchain.
The only one of the above that I'd be prepared to guarantee is totally space agnostic is MSVC++ 2008 Express edition.
Clifford
I agree, something named C-Free should probably be "free" for more than 30 days, although it does what I need it to do (but not for long at $60). Anyway, I'm taking an ANSI C programming class this fall and there are very few "free" Windows based IDE compilers that have the functionality I was looking for regarding my coursework. DEV-C++, Lcc-win32 and Borland's C++ 5.5 seem to fit the mold somewhat...vaguely keeping to ANSI C standards.
I have MSVC++ 2008 Express edition, MSVS Pro 2008 and MSVC++ 2005...all of them bloated and very Microslothish not unlike their OSs...to be honest I'm thinking seriously about bailing on Windows in general and simply using gcc and build-essential on Ubuntu or Debian Linux until the course is over.
Please note that some of the tools that Clifford mentioned, including CodeBlocks and
wxDevCPP use the GCC compiler, and have been ongoing development efforts. They
are basically everything you want in Dev, but better.
Wayne