Hello, world! and programming languages

[Eevee]

The biggest problem I am having with GCC is that it outputs TOO MANY warnings -even without -Wall.

sooo fix the warnings? at least if you write code aimed at VC++ and compile it with GCC you only get warnings; when I do the reverse VC++ explodes into a cloud of rather silly compile errors.

There are still legal constructs in C which are illegal in C++.

o.o only thing that comes to mind is:

Code: Select all

int a;
a = 4 //**/2;
3;

Why should I use an inferior version of practically the same programming language?

o.ó angry eyebrow.

[Graf Zahl]

The biggest problem I am having with GCC is that it outputs TOO MANY warnings -even without -Wall.

sooo fix the warnings? at least if you write code aimed at VC++ and compile it with GCC you only get warnings; when I do the reverse VC++ explodes into a cloud of rather silly compile errors.

That's because GCC is far too lax regarding its syntax checks. Combined with the bad habit of putting out warnings for certain errors it's totally annoying.

[Eevee]

What's it lax about? And what errors? argh. the only difference coming to mind is that VC++ doesn't recognize the i in for (int i;;) to be local to that loop. and something about classes that I completely forgot.

[Cyb]

o.o only thing that comes to mind is:

Code: Select all

int a;
a = 4 //**/2;
3;

heh, actually most C compilers support // for comments (gcc among them) since using /**/ for everything is just annoying

[Chris]

heh, actually most C compilers support // for comments (gcc among them) since using /**/ for everything is just annoying

That's right. But // wasn't valid C until C99, so in C, that code is a = 4 / 2; but in C++, it would be a = 4 3;

And you could always use -posix (if that's valid, or -ansi) with -pedantic if you're worried about compatibility with no warning flags. But in my experience, -Wall has never outputted a non-important warning (whether or not it was crucial is another matter). Sometimes -W can get annoying, especially if the code was initially written without it, but -Wall should almost always be heeded, in my experience.

[Cyb]

what kind of crazy doesn't use C99!?

[Chris]

Not too many, since C99 is reletively new and runs into compatibility/implementation issues. Declaring variables anywhere within a code block is valid C99, but you still only see that in C++.

[Cyb]

yeah I know, but regardless most compilers support // for comments even without C99 flagged on (or whatever you do, I stick to ANSI myself when I code C, which I try not to do :P) because it's really just insane that there's no single line comment support for C. Default gcc settings on both SunOS and Linux allow this, so it must be some kind of standard (by contrast you still have to declare vars at the top of blocks, so it's not C99)

[Chris]

// In C is a GCC extention that any sane compiler just happens to support as well. By contrast, variable size arrays like this:

Code: Select all

int some_function(int blah)
{
  char some_string[blah];
  // blah blah..
}

has been a valid GCC extention, however most all other compilers, including MSVC, would choke on it immediately. But C99 standards now specify it (incidently, this is still invalid in C++).

[Raziel Anarki]

9 PAGES AND NO JAVA?!

well, 10 pages and no php either

Code: Select all

<?php

echo "Hello World";

?>

[Cyb]

// In C is a GCC extention that any sane compiler just happens to support as well. By contrast, variable size arrays like this:

Code: Select all

int some_function(int blah)
{
  char some_string[blah];
  // blah blah..
}

has been a valid GCC extention, however most all other compilers, including MSVC, would choke on it immediately. But C99 standards now specify it (incidently, this is still invalid in C++).

waoh weird, I didn't know that was valid in C99, it's not even valid in C++ (yes I know you already said that heh)... that could come in handy, though it's just as easy to use malloc (I guess)... crazyness