Asp Forum - Microsoft's C/C++ compiler freely available

Nathaniel Talbott

11/15/2003 4:22:00 AM

Thought this might be interesting to those stuck on win32...

http://www.winprog.org/tutorial...

Of course, I only care for so much longer, since my Powerbook is on order
;-)

Nathaniel

<:((><

10 Answers

ptkwt

11/15/2003 6:20:00 AM

In article <001301c3ab2f$f5470230$0500a8c0@abraham>,
Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> wrote:
>Thought this might be interesting to those stuck on win32...
>
> http://www.winprog.org/tutorial...
>
>Of course, I only care for so much longer, since my Powerbook is on order
>;-)

Another one makes the switch ;-) At OSCON this summer it seemed like
something close to half of the people had Powerbooks. It certainly looks
like OSX is making huge gains in the development community.

I'd really like to get one of those Powerbooks too, but can't seem to
figure out how to either come up with the $$ or convince Apple to give me
one ;-) So when I was last at Fry's drooling over one of those
new dual G5 boxes I did a 'ruby -v' at the commandline and found that it
had version 1.6.8, not 1.8.0. As I recall, we were trying to get 1.8.0
out in time to make it into OSX 10.3 - were we just too late?

BTW: I also noticed that Ruby is on the Knoppix 3.3 CD (again it's 1.6.8)
- I was kind of surprised (pleasantly) to find it there.

Phil

Daniel Carrera

11/15/2003 8:26:00 AM

Question:
Why would you want to use Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when gcc is
available? No sarcasm. This is an honest question.

* I saw a benchmark of compilers in which gcc and MS shared the second
place (1st was Intel):

http://www.willus.com/ccomp_benchmar...

(see the update for Sep 10/02)
This is impressive considering that Intel and MS only cater to one
hardware platform, whereas gcc caters to many.

* Given the above, wouldn't it make sense to use a compiler that isn't
tied to one particular hardware? Especially if you plan on using more
than one hardware.

Cheers,
Daniel.

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:22:29PM +0900, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
> Thought this might be interesting to those stuck on win32...
>
> http://www.winprog.org/tutorial...
>
> Of course, I only care for so much longer, since my Powerbook is on order
> ;-)
>
>
> Nathaniel
>
> <:((><
>

--
Daniel Carrera | Aleph-0 bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-0 bottles
PhD student. | of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Aleph-0
Math Dept. | bottles of beer on he wall...
UMD, | http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Al...

Igor Maximchuk

11/15/2003 5:11:00 PM

> http://www.winprog.org/tutorial...

Can anyone explain license agreement on this comiler?
Can one distribute programs using this free compiler from MS?

Thanks.

Useko Netsumi

11/15/2003 8:29:00 PM

did Microsoft release it?

"Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> wrote in message
news:001301c3ab2f$f5470230$0500a8c0@abraham...
> Thought this might be interesting to those stuck on win32...
>
> http://www.winprog.org/tutorial...
>
> Of course, I only care for so much longer, since my Powerbook is on order
> ;-)
>
>
> Nathaniel
>
> <:((><
>
>

Ollivier Robert

11/22/2003 2:14:00 PM

In article <bp4gi8064o@enews4.newsguy.com>,
Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
> had version 1.6.8, not 1.8.0. As I recall, we were trying to get 1.8.0
> out in time to make it into OSX 10.3 - were we just too late?

At least it is complete with headers and libruby.dylib, something that was
missing in 10.2. Anyway, Ruby 1.8.1 and the CVS version compile w/o
problems. Be sure to have libreadline installed before recompiling or you
won't get readline support in irb.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- Eurocontrol EEC/ITM -=- roberto@eurocontrol.fr
Usenet Canal Historique FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!

bjsp123

11/22/2003 2:20:00 PM

Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<20031115082603.GB780@math.umd.edu>...
> Question:
> Why would you want to use Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when gcc is
> available? No sarcasm. This is an honest question.

A better question these days might be: why would you want to use
Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when their C# compiler (and the .NET build
tools and runtimes) are also free?

Richard Kilmer

11/22/2003 8:32:00 PM

On Nov 22, 2003, at 9:17 AM, Ollivier Robert wrote:

> In article <bp4gi8064o@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
>> had version 1.6.8, not 1.8.0. As I recall, we were trying to get
>> 1.8.0
>> out in time to make it into OSX 10.3 - were we just too late?

I tried working with Apple to do this (with special thanks to James
Duncan
Davidson) but it was just too late. They had already committed to
golden
master before 1.8 was finalized :-(

>
> At least it is complete with headers and libruby.dylib, something that
> was
> missing in 10.2. Anyway, Ruby 1.8.1 and the CVS version compile w/o
> problems. Be sure to have libreadline installed before recompiling or
> you
> won't get readline support in irb.

Yeah, I have a blog post on how to do it here:

http://richkilmer.blogs.com/ether/2003/10/building_r...

-rich

> --
> Ollivier ROBERT -=- Eurocontrol EEC/ITM -=- roberto@eurocontrol.fr
> Usenet Canal Historique FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
>
>

Frank Schmitt

11/24/2003 11:05:00 AM

bjsp123@imap.cc (Benjamin Peterson) writes:

> Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:<20031115082603.GB780@math.umd.edu>...
> > Question:
> > Why would you want to use Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when gcc is
> > available? No sarcasm. This is an honest question.
>
>
> A better question these days might be: why would you want to use
> Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when their C# compiler (and the .NET build
> tools and runtimes) are also free?

Because C/C++ are both platform-independent?
Because C# is yet another obsolete offspring of C/C++?
Because I don't want garbage collection in my compiled language of choice?
Because I want templates?
Because...

oh well, enough rant for now :-)
regards
frank

--
Frank Schmitt
4SC AG phone: +49 89 700763-0
e-mail: frankNO DOT SPAMschmitt AT 4sc DOT com

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt

11/24/2003 11:15:00 PM

Hi!

* Frank Schmitt; 2003-11-24, 13:08 UTC:
> bjsp123@imap.cc (Benjamin Peterson) writes:
>>
>> A better question these days might be: why would you want to use
>> Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when their C# compiler (and the .NET
>> build tools and runtimes) are also free?
>
> Because C/C++ are both platform-independent?

C# is platform-independent, too. Microsoft's C# compiler is not the
only one...

> Because C# is yet another obsolete offspring of C/C++?

I wouldn't call it obsolete unless there is a good Ruby compiler...

> Because I don't want garbage collection in my compiled language of
> choice?

Most programs dynamically allocate and free memory so garbage
collection is a must. What you are talking about is *automatic*
garbage collection. In C# you can manually collect garbage or you can
have C# do that for you - it is possible to have both in one program.

> Because I want templates?

Yes, that's a problem but MS is working on that. The major problem
with upcoming templates is that 'slipping deadline' brand campaign.

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
--
.-------.
message > 100 kB? / | |
sender = spammer? / | R.I.P.|
text = spam? / ___| |___

Neil Spring

11/29/2003 11:42:00 PM

On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:31:50AM +0900, Richard Kilmer wrote:

> I tried working with Apple to do this (with special thanks
> to James Duncan Davidson) but it was just too late. They
> had already committed to golden master before 1.8 was
> finalized :-(

Richard,

If you have a contact at apple managing Ruby, would you forward
a concern of mine along, or direct me (off list if appropriate)
to the proper way to report a problem with the ruby install on
OS X 10.3.1?

In rbconfig.rb, there are two oddities. First, CFLAGS includes
"-arch i386 -arch ppc", twice. I think this is very odd.

Second, and more importantly because it initially broke my
attempts to use rbconfig.rb to autoconfigure a modified ruby
interpreter,

CONFIG["LIBRUBY_A"] = "lib$(RUBY_INSTALL_NAME).a"
CONFIG["LIBRUBY_SO"] = "lib$(RUBY_INSTALL_NAME).so.$(MAJOR).$(MINOR).$(TEENY)"
CONFIG["LIBRUBY_ALIASES"] = "lib$(RUBY_INSTALL_NAME).so"
CONFIG["LIBRUBY"] = "$(LIBRUBY_A)"
CONFIG["LIBRUBYARG"] = "$(LIBRUBY_A)"

however, ".so" is not a shared library extension on these
machines (dylib is the proper extension) and libruby.a is
not installed (apparently apple dislikes static linking).
It would be great if I could test for the existence of
LIBRUBY_SO in libdir, or just compile with LIBRUBYARG. It's
hard for me to figure out how to use these rbconfig entries
to automatically discover how to build and install add-ons,
and I don't remember having this difficulty with fink's ruby
on jaguar.

thanks,
-neil

comp.lang.ruby

Microsoft's C/C++ compiler freely available