- Alternatives to Visual Studio 2015 or later - 24 Updates
- Alternatives to Visual Studio 2015 or later - 1 Update
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 25 12:42PM +1300 On 03/25/2018 12:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > You can try: > http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc > It is fairly nice. It's also a C compiler! -- Ian. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 25 12:48PM +1300 On 03/25/2018 12:13 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > those code bases? The only one I am aware of is Intel's C++ > compiler, and it's $1600 for the professional version per year, > which I also think is outrageous. On par with other "professional" offerings. > Intel should give away their > compilers because it would encourage people to use their CPUs > instead of other manufacturer CPUs. The Intel tools selling point is performance on Intel CPUs; if that's what you need, the cost is fair. > Does anybody have a free compiler that's of its own source code > base, not deriving from GCC or CLang? What's wrong with those options? -- Ian |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 24 04:49PM -0700 On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 2:43:49 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Visual Studio 2015 or later go faster in debugging? It has a > great IDE, and edit-and-continue is excellent, but single-step > speed is slow enough I'm looking for another tool. I find it curious that you seem to be spending so much time in the debugger. I rarely, hardly ever, do. Is there something about how you approach a programming problem that requires you to be in the debugger that much? Thanks, Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 04:54PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:49:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > I find it curious that you seem to be spending so much time in the debugger. > I rarely, hardly ever, do. Is there something about how you approach a > programming problem that requires you to be in the debugger that much? I typically use Visual Studio. It has an edit-and-continue ABI. I am able to write code, begin running it, then make changes or add code on-the-fly, apply code changes, and keep going. I single-step through most everything and examine structures and variables as I go. It's been my long-term development style since the early 2000s. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 24 04:57PM -0700 On 3/24/2018 4:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc >> It is fairly nice. > It's also a C compiler! Argh! Touche. Ouch. ;^o |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 24 04:58PM -0700 On 3/24/2018 4:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> It's also a C compiler! > Argh! Touche. Ouch. > ;^o Well, Rick does seem to like compiling C code in C++... |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 25 12:25AM On 24/03/2018 23:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > code on-the-fly, apply code changes, and keep going. I single-step > through most everything and examine structures and variables as I go. > It's been my long-term development style since the early 2000s. Sounds an egregious way of doing things. Debuggers are primarily for debugging not for day-to-day code cutting. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 05:56PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 8:25:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Sounds an egregious way of doing things. Debuggers are primarily for > debugging not for day-to-day code cutting. It works well. I've been able to code everything to date using that model. You can seem some of my coding sessions here. Go to the end of the page. They are the videos recorded mostly in 2012 and 2013: http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/ Here's one of me refactoring some of my bitmap algorithms (best viewed on 1920 x 1200, 2.5 hr, 4 fps): http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2012_11_04__01_development__refactoring_load_bitmaps_from_disk.ogv -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Mar 25 01:35AM > instead of other manufacturer CPUs. > Does anybody have a free compiler that's of its own source code > base, not deriving from GCC or CLang? Intel compiler is now free. You can purchase 70 day free commercial license, and then renew it after these days, for free eternally ... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... |
| Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Mar 25 01:37AM >> Argh! Touche. Ouch. >> ;^o > Well, Rick does seem to like compiling C code in C++... Heh, when I want C, I use C compiler. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 25 02:37AM +0100 On 25/03/2018 00:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Here's one of me refactoring some of my bitmap algorithms (best > viewed on 1920 x 1200, 2.5 hr, 4 fps): > http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2012_11_04__01_development__refactoring_load_bitmaps_from_disk.ogv Out of curiosity I started playing this to confirm my suspicion that it is another platform where you egregiously proselytize and I wasn't disappointed. Stopped playing after a minute (didn't want to throw up). Speed of light mate. #atheism /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 25 02:41PM +1300 On 03/25/2018 12:54 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > am able to write code, begin running it, then make changes or add > code on-the-fly, apply code changes, and keep going. I single-step > through most everything and examine structures and variables as I go. Way slower and less robust than write test, code to pass test, refactor, repeat... A slow or poor debugger is good motivation to write good tests! -- Ian |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 06:59PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Out of curiosity I started playing this to confirm my suspicion that it > is another platform where you egregiously proselytize and I wasn't > disappointed. Stopped playing after a minute (didn't want to throw up). Most likely all of my videos are like that in one way or another. I picked one at random ... something that I thought might have some interesting code. The whole Visual FreePro project was an offering given over to the Lord, a free and open source-level compatible alternative to Microsoft's Visual FoxPro 9 final release before they canceled the product. In 2012 I was hopeful other developers would come on board and help me complete it, but to date I've only had two other developers come on board and help, and only for short whiles: http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/VXB#Contributions People have shied away from the project for similar reasons, that they don't want to be involved with a project honoring Jesus Christ explicitly. I've had people tell me (VFP experts) that if I made it a commercial project they would help me. This post came through my Facebook page today: https://www.facebook.com/real.men.read.pink/posts/1771445106240930?pnref=story "It is the duty of God's servants to warn men of their danger, to point out that the way of rebellion against God leads to certain destruction and to call upon them to throw down the weapons of their revolt and flee from the wrath to come. "It is their duty to teach men that they must turn from their idols and serve the living God, otherwise they will eternally perish. "It is their duty to rebuke wickedness wherever it be found and to declare that the wages of sin is death. "This will not make for their popularity, for it will condemn and irritate the wicked, and such plain speaking will seriously annoy them. Those who expose hypocrites, resist tyrants, oppose the wicked, are ever viewed by them as troublemakers. But as Christ declared --- Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you --- (Matthew 5:11, 12)." -- Arthur Pink, "The Life of Elijah," 1963 Christianity is a real thing, Leigh ... though you may only know the other hypocritical form that is so prevalent in modern society. The "do whatever you want and call yourself a Christian" religion of lies and hypocrisy. Being a true Christian is a conversion. It's a new life, from the inside out, and it permeates everything you do, and everything you are. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 07:04PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:41:47 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > > through most everything and examine structures and variables as I go. > Way slower and less robust than write test, code to pass test, refactor, > repeat... It works for me. It has for a long time. I also have dyslexia and despite my best efforts, I still write wrong things. I can even think "if not variable_name" intending to code "if (!variable_name)" and code "if (variable_name)". I don't know how I do it, but it happens regularly. The edit-and-continue debugger is an absolute essential tool for me. As is stepping through my code line-by-line and examining variables. It helps me to double-check things to overcome my shortcomings in coding. > A slow or poor debugger is good motivation to write good tests! Only Visual Studio 2015 has been slow. I've used Visual Studio 2003 (my favorite), 2008 (second favorite), 2010, and 2015, and I've tried 2017 briefly. I typically code in VS 2008 today because it has the Code Definition Window. If VS 2003 had that window, I would use it instead. I've considered writing an add-on for that version which did exactly that. Once my goal is to complete CAlive, and then I'll have no need so I've just stuck with VS 2008. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 25 03:10AM +0100 On 25/03/2018 02:59, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: [snip] > Being a true Christian is a conversion. It's a new life, from the > inside out, and it permeates everything you do, and everything you > are. Speed of light mate. #atheism /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 07:25PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:10:40 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > are. > Speed of light mate. > #atheism You can repeat your statements all the way to your death, Leigh. I've given you a response to them, and you've rejected it. There's nothing I can do about that. I am not responsible for other people believing the truth, only for teaching them the truth rightly. I have done that, and my work is fulfilled such that should I die today, I would stand before the Lord and be able to say, in His Holy presence, that I did try with great passion to teach you the truth. I am innocent of your blood even though you remain damned to Hell today. It makes me sad to be sure, but there's nothing I can do. When a person rejects the truth ... there's nothing anyone can do for them ... not even God because He honors your decision and your choice, even if it leads to your own soul's destruction in Hell. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 25 03:47AM +0100 On 25/03/2018 03:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: [snip] > When a person rejects the truth ... Speed of light mate. #atheism /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 25 03:55PM +1300 On 03/25/2018 03:04 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > think "if not variable_name" intending to code "if (!variable_name)" > and code "if (variable_name)". I don't know how I do it, but it > happens regularly. It would also be caught by tests.... > As is stepping through my code line-by-line and examining variables. > It helps me to double-check things to overcome my shortcomings in > coding. As do tests faster and with a lot more consistency. -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 24 08:06PM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:55:41 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > > and code "if (variable_name)". I don't know how I do it, but it > > happens regularly. > It would also be caught by tests.... Tests are appropriate at times. > > It helps me to double-check things to overcome my shortcomings in > > coding. > As do tests faster and with a lot more consistency. You've mentioned this coding style before. I'm glad it works for you. It's not my style or need for a lot of the coding I do. Some of my algorithms could benefit and I've written self-test code before. Different coding styles for different people. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 25 04:11AM +0100 On 25/03/2018 04:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > you. It's not my style or need for a lot of the coding I do. Some of > my algorithms could benefit and I've written self-test code before. > Different coding styles for different people. Unit tests aren't a "coding style"; they are an important part of the software development process; if you never write unit tests then you are doing it wrong. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 25 04:37PM +1300 On 03/25/2018 04:06 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> happens regularly. >> It would also be caught by tests.... > Tests are appropriate at times. The only case I can think of is one off non-production code that is never going to be changed. > You've mentioned this coding style before. I'm glad it works for > you. It's not my style or need for a lot of the coding I do. Some of > my algorithms could benefit and I've written self-test code before. So you write code that you will never change and don't need to check for regressions? > Different coding styles for different people. Unit tests aren't a style, they are a vital part of the software development process! -- Ian |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 25 03:36AM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:37:30 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > > Tests are appropriate at times. > The only case I can think of is one off non-production code that is > never going to be changed. I worked for a company in the mid-2000s that had six full-time developers, and three full-time unit test writers. They wrote test after test after test for the code we would write. I was never able to justify that degree of labor spent on writing tests when you, as a developer, are supposed to test the code you write as you go. It's kind of the purpose of my single-step debugging in areas where I have changed something. With Visual Studio, you hover over a token name and if it's a variable of some kind it pops up its value or member list, and as you hover over each part it drops down into the child member contents, and into that member's children, etc. It all takes a few seconds to navigate. > > my algorithms could benefit and I've written self-test code before. > So you write code that you will never change and don't need to check for > regressions? I write code that I test before releasing it to our company's internal testers. And if there is a regression, I fix it. I've pushed for adding the type of testing you indicate at our company, but their view is: (1) Greatly increases the labor because you have to now: (1a) Write the new code, or (1b) Make changes to the existing code, (1c) Test your new / changed algorithm manually anyway, (1d) Write the test, or update the test code (2) The fact that you're writing more than just changes to your code introduces the potential for errors in your tests, which then must be tracked down: (2a) Was the error a real error? Or a test error? (2b) Changes are made to code (2c) Possibly some additional changes need to be made to the tests It's a great increase in labor to write tests for cases which, in my experience, rarely are required. For some complex code it is good to do unit testing. For some large algorithms it is good to do unit testing. But for the rest, part of the job of a developer is to test your code and make sure that the changes you're making haven't broken anything. You can typically do this just by running your code with a few variables. In an edit-and-continue debugger environment, you can enter the function, pause, change runtime values, restart the algorithm, try again with new settings, etc., much faster than you can write a unit test to validate it. Such a methodology would not give aid on the next round of tests that are required when other changes are made to other parts of the system, but historically speaking the number of other things broken like that are very rare, far rarer to fix than to devote time to trying to catch them in the first place. Remember also, this is mostly C code written in a C++ compiler that I do. It's far less prone to error. :-) > > Different coding styles for different people. > Unit tests aren't a style, they are a vital part of the software > development process! In some cases I agree. In others, the labor does not justify the gain ... in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. It's a philosophical viewpoint. And as I get older, I am leaning more and more toward testing as I'm no longer able to be as fully comprehensive in my memory and abilities as I was when I was much younger. I do make mistakes as I get older, and I can see the value in testing more and more because of it. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 25 03:58AM -0700 On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:11:48 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Unit tests aren't a "coding style"; they are an important part of the > software development process; if you never write unit tests then you are > doing it wrong. I do write unit tests on some things, but not on everything. And it is a large amount of labor to setup and document unit tests which are able to give a yay/nay result with some degree of diag- nostic ability. At least that's been my experience. In my opinion, on most code, that additional amount of labor does not justify the gains achieved by having the unit tests. On some types of code it does. It depends on the factors involved. I have coded this way since I began coding. The number of bugs I've had which reach production are few, and their impact is typically minimal as I release new code to trusted "test sites" who are able to run it knowing there may be problems. They like to use the software in this way because they have a close relationship with the developers, and they know they'll be able to get their wants and wishes added to the code base. It's a good tradeoff... less labor on our part, wider testing on their part, before it goes to mass release. In my experience, it's a fairly common practice to do it this way. And as I say, to me it's a coding style. The style of coding you do involves writing unit tests or not. Just my opinion. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 25 04:18AM -0700 On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 6:37:00 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I was never able to justify that degree of labor spent on writing > tests when you, as a developer, are supposed to test the code you > write as you go. I would go so far as to say that there were cases where it made for sloppy developers, because they knew "the unit testers will find any bugs." When you know the final authority stops with you, you do some extra double- and triple-checks to make sure. You might also ask another developer to look it over and see if there's anything obvious. It helps inter-personal relationships in understanding the hows and whys of what made a particular thing be designed or altered in that way, and it puts a second mind on the problem knowing that they may be thinking of things you haven't pigeonholed your own thinking in to while working on this isolated component. I've caught more bugs that way than I've ever caught with unit testing, and probably even with release-to-testers testing. > up its value or member list, and as you hover over each part > it drops down into the child member contents, and into that > member's children, etc. It all takes a few seconds to navigate. In my experience, everybody codes differently. And for many people their coding style is a religion and they are relentless in it. For me, because of my dyslexia, I've had to learn that different things work for different people. It's based on how they're wired, what they feel comfortable with, etc. And so long as they're not causing an issue by their unique quirks, such as trying to code "if (5 == x)" rather than the obvious and proper form of "if (x == 5)", then it's all good. :-) -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Good Guy <hello.world@example.com>: Mar 25 02:12AM +0100 On 24/03/2018 23:49, Daniel wrote: > programming problem that requires you to be in the debugger that much? > Thanks, > Daniel I don't see the original post so I am replying here. Microsoft has got a scaled down version of its compiler tools called MSBuild and you don't need to install its IDE. <https://www.visualstudio.com/thank-you-downloading-visual-studio/?sku=BuildTools&rel=15> After installing just launch the cmd prompt that it creates and now all the tools are available - C, C++, C#, TypeScript etc etc. You can use any editor of your choice but Microsoft VS Code is the best around at present. VS Code can debug your code as well and there are YouTube Videos for that. Enbarcadero has also got free tools on its website. You are restricted to 32 bit programs only on its free tools otherwise it is good as well. again no IDe is required to use its tools. -- With over 600 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment