On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 20:31:30 UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 02:57:52 UTC+3, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> >
> > How does this crap manage to entrench itself in these heads? Were is it
> > really coming from? I'm at a loss.
> People just remember that it was crappy, have tons of other things to do
> and so find no motivation to download that visual studio and try it. The
> old windows laptop I'm typing it right now has only mingw compilers
> installed. I feel zero motivation to install visual studio to it. As for why?
> Even if I download some open source code here to see ... it more likely
> compiles with mingw than with vs.
>
I don't have a choice. Windows is one of the operating systems that our customers
use. Even though the bulk of the code is cross-platform, it does need occasional
testing on Windows, because there are some inconsistencies in the API.

We do an integration build before submitting programs for testing, and we find
that it's important that everyone uses the same version of the same compiler.

Whilst I suppose I could insist on using a different IDE, I'd have to be very
committed to the other IDE for there to be a point in doing so.

Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I has already stated previously, aside from some understandable niche
> areas, which amount to no more than mere statistical anomalies,
> everything in professional programming world is done in Visual Studio,
> regardless of the target platform.

Could you say more about your research methodology? How do you
get access to data that is frequently considered proprietary?
Why do you think that sample you have is representative?

--
Waldek Hebisch

On 4/20/2022 12:31 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> This piece of nonsense seems to have a life of its own. A tenet in this
>> outlandish and nonsensical religion. And a mark that instantly reveal
>> someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
>>
>
> It was the case over decade ago or so. The C compiler of Visual Studio
> was so bad that it was easier to transform C code into common subset
> of C and C++ and to compile it with its C++ compiler.

That's just a repetition of the same nonsense we've seen before.

In C89/90 era, Microsoft C compiler has always been regarded as the
absolute industry leader. The only time their C compiler was attacked as
supposedly "bad" was the early post-C99 period when Microsoft C did not
support C99.

And even that was just a trollbait in 99 cases out of 100. Most of the
C99-related "complaints" were actually immaterial, since it was easy to
show that no one of those anonymous whiners actually knew C99 enough to
use it. (They still don't, since 99% of them were/are not even
programmers.)

Most of them were reddit-grade snot-nosed trolls just echoing each
other. It became especially evident after Microsoft quietly added C99
support to their C compilers. The trolls continued to whine, since they
wouldn't recognize C99 even if it hit them in the face. They still
whine, and that oft-repeated soundbite about "using subset of C++
instead of C" is probably the most telling tell that reveals such trolls.

>> Yes, I've seen completely green newbies who believe in this bizarre idea
>> that "C in MSVC is compatible subset of C++" because nobody ever told
>> them that there is real C in MSVC. Newbies simply have no idea how to
>> use real C. And their teachers usually don't either out of plain
>> incompetence.
>
> Maybe its C compiler has become better now but few know nor care as
> no shops are starting C projects for Visual Studio. Or maybe they are
> already saturated full with specialists so do not headhunt.

Again, that's just a repetition of the same nonsense we've seen before.

Shops that require specific compilers? Where on Earth did things go into
such extreme decay? Who does this? Outsourcing sweatshops?

> People just remember that it was crappy, have tons of other things to do
> and so find no motivation to download that visual studio and try it.

Well, welcome to Harvard again :) Someone injected people's head with
garbage and that became what they "remember".

The reason Visual Studio dominates everyday development across all
platforms in professional world is the simple fact that no one has ever
been able to even approach its deployment speed, convenience, efficiency
and usability. I definitely see that they have been trying since
forever, but fell short every time for some reason. Although personally,
I do see that reason rather clearly: what's the point of spending effort
to "match" Visual Studio with a new product, when nobody is going to
switch anyway? Guerilla holdouts in deep Amazon forests who believe that
"Linux desktop" wars are still in progress don't count.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

On 4/20/22 17:54, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I has already stated previously, aside from some understandable
>> niche areas, which amount to no more than mere statistical anomalies,
>> everything in professional programming world is done in Visual
>> Studio, regardless of the target platform.
>
> Could you say more about your research methodology? How do you
> get access to data that is frequently considered proprietary?
> Why do you think that sample you have is representative?

I believe that his research methodology is to dismiss every
counter-example he runs into as coming from a niche area,

Am 18.04.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Scott Lurndal:
> Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> writes:
>>
>> char get_char(const char *format, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1,
>> 2)));
>>
>> I downloaded a free library file from this link:
>> <https://github.com/cs50/libcs50/releases>
>>
>> But when I try to compile it, it faults at line 58 and other lines
>> containing attribute world. So what exactly is likely to be wrong with it.?
>> The library was created by Harvard uni for students to learn C
>> programming so it must work on a Windows system using visual Studio, but
>
> Evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
>
>> it doesn't. What changes should I make to make it work?
>
> Don't use Microsoft compilers.

MSVC hasn't the best optimizer-backend but for sure
the best C++20 frontend, even a little better than gcc.

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 03:27:35 UTC+3, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 12:31 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>
> >> This piece of nonsense seems to have a life of its own. A tenet in this
> >> outlandish and nonsensical religion. And a mark that instantly reveal
> >> someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
> >>
> >
> > It was the case over decade ago or so. The C compiler of Visual Studio
> > was so bad that it was easier to transform C code into common subset
> > of C and C++ and to compile it with its C++ compiler.
>
> That's just a repetition of the same nonsense we've seen before.

But it was so. How can facts be nonsense? C99 simply did not compile
around 2010. It was possible to get decent money for making C code
compatible with MSVC back then. Now no one even tries to. VS is used
for C# projects. Perhaps for those it is good.

> In C89/90 era, Microsoft C compiler has always been regarded as the
> absolute industry leader. The only time their C compiler was attacked as
> supposedly "bad" was the early post-C99 period when Microsoft C did not
> support C99.

That is plain lie. Before VS 6.0 (1998) MS toolchain was less used for PC
software than tools from Borland and Watcom because it was piss poor.
Best thing from MS was FoxPro that MS acquired from Fox Software.
That VS 6.0 toolchain was finally useful for Visual Basic, also it could compile
C++ passably so some migrated. However C was already used rarely as PC
programming language and things like Java started to take over application
market. That "early" post-C99 era when MS compiler for C was bad
lasted certainly for more than decade. It might be is bad right now. Who
knows? No one starts C programs for Windows desktop with whatever
toolchain so it is relatively pointless to waste time for checking.

>
> And even that was just a trollbait in 99 cases out of 100. Most of the
> C99-related "complaints" were actually immaterial, since it was easy to
> show that no one of those anonymous whiners actually knew C99 enough to
> use it. (They still don't, since 99% of them were/are not even
> programmers.)

Few months ago some people complained to me that there are no
<stdatomic.h> of MSVC and what to do. I was surprised why they need
MSVC. They told that wanted to try to compile their embedded code
tests or something like that. I suggested to use mingw. So that is the
only indication I have that MS is now maybe in "early post-C11" era
or whatever.

> Most of them were reddit-grade snot-nosed trolls just echoing each
> other. It became especially evident after Microsoft quietly added C99
> support to their C compilers. The trolls continued to whine, since they
> wouldn't recognize C99 even if it hit them in the face. They still
> whine, and that oft-repeated soundbite about "using subset of C++
> instead of C" is probably the most telling tell that reveals such trolls.

Who whines? Do I whine? If needed then real engineer gets whatever to
run with really horrible toolchain be it MSVC or IAR ... just the price will be
saltier and that is it. Otherwise it is work like usual. But such work is rare
now. Major desktop products like FireFox or Chrome are built using Clang
on Windows ... past 5 years or so.

> >> Yes, I've seen completely green newbies who believe in this bizarre idea
> >> that "C in MSVC is compatible subset of C++" because nobody ever told
> >> them that there is real C in MSVC. Newbies simply have no idea how to
> >> use real C. And their teachers usually don't either out of plain
> >> incompetence.
> >
> > Maybe its C compiler has become better now but few know nor care as
> > no shops are starting C projects for Visual Studio. Or maybe they are
> > already saturated full with specialists so do not headhunt.
>
> Again, that's just a repetition of the same nonsense we've seen before.
>
> Shops that require specific compilers? Where on Earth did things go into
> such extreme decay? Who does this? Outsourcing sweatshops?

Where are those "outsourcing sweatshops"? Do you live in 1999 Office Space
of Elbonia with Dilbert? Everybody sane narrow their toolchains down.
Require? No, they beg ... large salaries, free breakfasts and dinners, share
option programs, flexible work schedules, 4 day workweeks etc blah
blah ... just join us, majority of spam are those proposals.
> > People just remember that it was crappy, have tons of other things to do
> > and so find no motivation to download that visual studio and try it.
>
> Well, welcome to Harvard again :) Someone injected people's head with
> garbage and that became what they "remember".
>
> The reason Visual Studio dominates everyday development across all
> platforms in professional world is the simple fact that no one has ever
> been able to even approach its deployment speed, convenience, efficiency
> and usability. I definitely see that they have been trying since
> forever, but fell short every time for some reason. Although personally,
> I do see that reason rather clearly: what's the point of spending effort
> to "match" Visual Studio with a new product, when nobody is going to
> switch anyway? Guerilla holdouts in deep Amazon forests who believe that
> "Linux desktop" wars are still in progress don't count.

That is really like sarcasm. On one of my 3 workstations I have VS 2019
installed right now. It is no way good IDE. Sluggish, irresponsible,
inconvenient, ugly and does not work. Even text search gives incorrect
answers. Who has idea to beat what is not even used? The open source
like Notepad++ or QtCreator? No. People just wrote those to have working
code editor on Windows.

On 4/21/2022 1:30 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 03:27:35 UTC+3, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 12:31 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This piece of nonsense seems to have a life of its own. A tenet in this
>>>> outlandish and nonsensical religion. And a mark that instantly reveal
>>>> someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was the case over decade ago or so. The C compiler of Visual Studio
>>> was so bad that it was easier to transform C code into common subset
>>> of C and C++ and to compile it with its C++ compiler.
>>
>> That's just a repetition of the same nonsense we've seen before.
>
> But it was so. How can facts be nonsense? C99 simply did not compile
> around 2010. It was possible to get decent money for making C code
> compatible with MSVC back then. Now no one even tries to. VS is used
> for C# projects. Perhaps for those it is good.
>
>> In C89/90 era, Microsoft C compiler has always been regarded as the
>> absolute industry leader. The only time their C compiler was attacked as
>> supposedly "bad" was the early post-C99 period when Microsoft C did not
>> support C99.
>
> That is plain lie. Before VS 6.0 (1998) MS toolchain was less used for PC
> software than tools from Borland and Watcom because it was piss poor.
> Best thing from MS was FoxPro that MS acquired from Fox Software.
> That VS 6.0 toolchain was finally useful for Visual Basic, also it could compile
> C++ passably so some migrated. However C was already used rarely as PC
> programming language and things like Java started to take over application
> market. That "early" post-C99 era when MS compiler for C was bad
> lasted certainly for more than decade. It might be is bad right now. Who
> knows? No one starts C programs for Windows desktop with whatever
> toolchain so it is relatively pointless to waste time for checking.
>

I can confirm this was my experience too.
Moreover, claiming that in the 90's MS C was the "absolute industry
leader" for C development, while it could only target the PC is somewhat
telling...

On 4/18/2022 12:44 PM, Jack Lemmon wrote:
>
> char get_char(const char *format, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1,
> 2)));
>
> I downloaded a free library file from this link:
> <https://github.com/cs50/libcs50/releases>
>
> But when I try to compile it, it faults at line 58 and other lines
> containing attribute world. So what exactly is likely to be wrong with it.?
> The library was created by Harvard uni for students to learn C
> programming so it must work on a Windows system using visual Studio, but
> it doesn't. What changes should I make to make it work?
>
>

This is what I got on Windows. Windows 11 (if you look at the task bar).

Used mingw32.

The thing isn't ready to be a DLL. That would take work.

While a web page told me a few arguments you could pass to GCC
to build, I don't think GCC picks them up unless you pass them.
I left them on the screen in the picture, in case you want to experiment with
them in some other environment.

So I was able to get some usage from the lib, by compiling
as a unit and linking.

[Picture] If the frame is blank, right-click and select "Reload"

https://i.postimg.cc/NF7k94F0/cs50-basic.gif

Using this stub:

https://ftp.halifax.rwth-aachen.de/osdn/mingw/68260/mingw-get-setup.exe

and selecting just the default packages. You don't need to spend
time at the very beginning, larding up C:\mingw with unnecessary items.

https://i.postimg.cc/bvHZcN6K/mingw-basic.gif

I picked three files out of the cs50, for a test compile. Failed
the first time, and a small edit, and I could at least demo a working
compile on Windows. Mingw uses GCC.

https://codeload.github.com/cs50/libcs50/zip/refs/tags/v10.1.1

Name: libcs50-10.1.1.zip
Size: 19966 bytes (19 KiB)
SHA1: 9F11E761C5513C5419BAADE7FCFB78CB18953E4F

I hope whatever is in that module, is worth it.

Paul

Le 21/04/2022 à 06:48, Bonita Montero a écrit :
> Am 18.04.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Scott Lurndal:
>> Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> writes:
>>>
>>> char get_char(const char *format, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1,
>>> 2)));
>>>
>>> I downloaded a free library file from this link:
>>> <https://github.com/cs50/libcs50/releases>
>>>
>>> But when I try to compile it, it faults at line 58 and other lines
>>> containing attribute world. So what exactly is likely to be wrong
>>> with it.?
>>> The library was created by Harvard uni for students to learn C
>>> programming so it must work on a Windows system using visual Studio, but
>>
>> Evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
>>
>>> it doesn't. What changes should I make to make it work?
>>
>> Don't use Microsoft compilers.
>
> MSVC hasn't the best optimizer-backend but for sure
> the best C++20 frontend, even a little better than gcc.

1/ please provide proof of that with examples,
2/ what does it have anything to do with the OP's question? Nothing.

niedziela, 24 kwietnia 2022 o 18:46:47 UTC+2 Guillaume napisał(a):
> Le 21/04/2022 à 06:48, Bonita Montero a écrit :
> > Am 18.04.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Scott Lurndal:
> >> Jack Lemmon <inv...@invalid.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>> char get_char(const char *format, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1,
> >>> 2)));
> >>>
> >>> I downloaded a free library file from this link:
> >>> <https://github.com/cs50/libcs50/releases>
> >>>
> >>> But when I try to compile it, it faults at line 58 and other lines
> >>> containing attribute world. So what exactly is likely to be wrong
> >>> with it.?
> >>> The library was created by Harvard uni for students to learn C
> >>> programming so it must work on a Windows system using visual Studio, but
> >>
> >> Evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
> >>
> >>> it doesn't. What changes should I make to make it work?
> >>
> >> Don't use Microsoft compilers.
> >
> > MSVC hasn't the best optimizer-backend but for sure
> > the best C++20 frontend, even a little better than gcc.
> 1/ please provide proof of that with examples,
> 2/ what does it have anything to do with the OP's question? Nothing.

bonita is religious fighter ..its sorta dik hodgin, c++pony evengelisation is her life, thios also dont get down to arguments it gets down to ungrounded belif - and its a waste of time to argue with this kind of people - becouse such people ' make chaff from the brain..gods thank at least hodgin is out

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 23:04:22 UTC+3, fir wrote:
> niedziela, 24 kwietnia 2022 o 18:46:47 UTC+2 Guillaume napisał(a):
> > Le 21/04/2022 à 06:48, Bonita Montero a écrit :
> > > Am 18.04.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Scott Lurndal:
> > >> Jack Lemmon <inv...@invalid.net> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> char get_char(const char *format, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1,
> > >>> 2)));
> > >>>
> > >>> I downloaded a free library file from this link:
> > >>> <https://github.com/cs50/libcs50/releases>
> > >>>
> > >>> But when I try to compile it, it faults at line 58 and other lines
> > >>> containing attribute world. So what exactly is likely to be wrong
> > >>> with it.?
> > >>> The library was created by Harvard uni for students to learn C
> > >>> programming so it must work on a Windows system using visual Studio, but
> > >>
> > >> Evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
> > >>
> > >>> it doesn't. What changes should I make to make it work?
> > >>
> > >> Don't use Microsoft compilers.
> > >
> > > MSVC hasn't the best optimizer-backend but for sure
> > > the best C++20 frontend, even a little better than gcc.
> > 1/ please provide proof of that with examples,
> > 2/ what does it have anything to do with the OP's question? Nothing.
>
> bonita is religious fighter ..its sorta dik hodgin, c++pony evengelisation is her life, thios also dont get down to arguments it gets down to ungrounded belif - and its a waste of time to argue with this kind of people - becouse such people ' make chaff from the brain..gods thank at least hodgin is out

You are like bonita. The ramine went silent for some time, bonita whined
where the nutcase is and of course that come back. Now you are calling
hodgin. Do you miss him so badly?