Compilers
- Thread starter Nightmare
- Start date
B
botman
Guest
http://www.parinya.ca/
(see the "Resources" page).
What doesn't work about the Borland command line compiler in WinXP (it works fine on my machine)?
botman
(see the "Resources" page).
What doesn't work about the Borland command line compiler in WinXP (it works fine on my machine)?
botman
I dont really know why it doesnt work, it just comes up with a bunch of errors, "unable to open include file isteam"and "unable to open include file ostream" i really dont get that tho
its #include <iostream> right? so y would it be erroring at istream and o stream?
It also calls cout an undiffined symbol in function main.
It also gives me 2 syntax erros which i cant see. All im trying to compile is
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << "blahblahblah";
return 0;
}
anyway thx for the site and hoppfully one it will work
its #include <iostream> right? so y would it be erroring at istream and o stream?
It also calls cout an undiffined symbol in function main.
It also gives me 2 syntax erros which i cant see. All im trying to compile is
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << "blahblahblah";
return 0;
}
anyway thx for the site and hoppfully one it will work
It is giving you errors regarding istream and ostream because iostream... suprise suprise, is implemented using both istream and ostream.
It is saying cout is an undefined symbol because cout is an instantiation of an ostream object. Since your compiler can't find ostream it won't be able to instantiate cout (similarily if it can't find istream it won't be able to instantiate cin).
Go to the folder that iostream is in and ensure that both istream and ostream are in there; they should have no file extension whatsoever (WinXP will refer to them simply as a FILE). The files iostream.h, istream.h, and ostream.h are not what I'm refering to.
It is saying cout is an undefined symbol because cout is an instantiation of an ostream object. Since your compiler can't find ostream it won't be able to instantiate cout (similarily if it can't find istream it won't be able to instantiate cin).
Go to the folder that iostream is in and ensure that both istream and ostream are in there; they should have no file extension whatsoever (WinXP will refer to them simply as a FILE). The files iostream.h, istream.h, and ostream.h are not what I'm refering to.
J
jackofthetrade32
Guest
PunisherUSA
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Messages
- 604
- Reaction score
- 0
Eclipse all the way! It's free, and works great.
RogueShadow
Newbie
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
- Messages
- 524
- Reaction score
- 0
Borland BuilderX I know i'ts not the same as builder, but I use it anyway. free
I know i'ts not the same as builder, but I use it anyway. free
I think it isn't harder than other programming languages like Object Pascal/Delphi, Objective-C, ..., but it depends on what you want to do with it.
There's no programming language in which it is really easy to make a game like Half-Life 2, by the way.
There's no programming language in which it is really easy to make a game like Half-Life 2, by the way.
I
imsuchacuteguy12
Guest
Ansur said:Couldn't agree more, though there might be a difference in coding the source engine in c or cobol
Well, that shows that you don't know shit about coding.
Just because you OLD college teaches you COBOL doesn't mean it is used for any new apps today.
Also, it is made in C++, not C.
Hey, it isn't a hard game to program. It just takes time. For nub programmers it does take a while.
B
botman
Guest
You might want to do a little research about COBOL before making uninformed statements...
"In 1997, about 80% of the 300 billion lines of code in existence was COBOL, according to the Gartner Group."
http://search390.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,,sid10_gci504033,00.html
You have obviously never done any business applications programming or you would know that there are more lines of COBOL in existence today than any other programming language (including C and C++).
COBOL is not a dead language. There are many, many, many mainframes and minicomputers today that run hundreds of millions of lines of COBOL code everyday and there are thousands and thousands of programmers maintaining that COBOL code and creating new COBOL code every day.
C and C++ are nice programming languages, but they are just babies in the computing world and have a LONG way to go before they will pass COBOL in the total number of lines of code.
botman
"In 1997, about 80% of the 300 billion lines of code in existence was COBOL, according to the Gartner Group."
http://search390.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,,sid10_gci504033,00.html
You have obviously never done any business applications programming or you would know that there are more lines of COBOL in existence today than any other programming language (including C and C++).
COBOL is not a dead language. There are many, many, many mainframes and minicomputers today that run hundreds of millions of lines of COBOL code everyday and there are thousands and thousands of programmers maintaining that COBOL code and creating new COBOL code every day.
C and C++ are nice programming languages, but they are just babies in the computing world and have a LONG way to go before they will pass COBOL in the total number of lines of code.
botman
Phisionary
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
it's not a matter of COBOL being popular or better. it's was what there was, it was the best they had.
today, c++ is a kind of defacto standard. most programs are written in c++; c++ is still often taught in schools; c++ is what people know; there are lots of resources out there for c++ programmers. but there are several other languages known to be faster and more efficient to work with. java, python, and others.
besides, it would cost a company many many times more to design, build, and test a new system than to maintain the old.
old programming languages never die; they just fade away....
today, c++ is a kind of defacto standard. most programs are written in c++; c++ is still often taught in schools; c++ is what people know; there are lots of resources out there for c++ programmers. but there are several other languages known to be faster and more efficient to work with. java, python, and others.
besides, it would cost a company many many times more to design, build, and test a new system than to maintain the old.
old programming languages never die; they just fade away....
Faster and more efficient to work with is not always the goal. If time and resources permit it tends better to go with a language which is faster and more efficient during execution.
The best thing would be to pick the best language given available time and resource and required resource utilization and speed.
So:
* A web based application is heavily I/O bound so speed is close to irrelevant. Result, pick a langauge which minimizes development costs -> interpeted languages with built in networking (ie. Java).
* An structural analysis application is heavily CPU bound where time is spent doing mathemtical equations. Result, pick a fast language with strong support for translating equations -> fortran.
* A hardware limited game is heavily CPU bound which needs to have access access to the majority of the system's hardware devices. Result, pick a compiled language with considerable libraries for communications with device drivers -> C++.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times must this be stated : DON'T RELY ON JUST ONE LANGUAGE TO SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM, use the most appropriate language given the circumstances. Java is not the be-all end-all of programming languages, neither is assembly, ada, algol, B, basic, bcpl, bliss, C, C++, C#, Cobal, Fortran, Lisp, Modula-2, Objective-C, Objective-Fortran, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Python, Visual Basic, XML etc...
Some of the above languages are in fact useless in that another language exists which is stronger in every single way than them. But at least 10 of those languages are considerably useful under complementary circumstances.
The best thing would be to pick the best language given available time and resource and required resource utilization and speed.
So:
* A web based application is heavily I/O bound so speed is close to irrelevant. Result, pick a langauge which minimizes development costs -> interpeted languages with built in networking (ie. Java).
* An structural analysis application is heavily CPU bound where time is spent doing mathemtical equations. Result, pick a fast language with strong support for translating equations -> fortran.
* A hardware limited game is heavily CPU bound which needs to have access access to the majority of the system's hardware devices. Result, pick a compiled language with considerable libraries for communications with device drivers -> C++.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times must this be stated : DON'T RELY ON JUST ONE LANGUAGE TO SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM, use the most appropriate language given the circumstances. Java is not the be-all end-all of programming languages, neither is assembly, ada, algol, B, basic, bcpl, bliss, C, C++, C#, Cobal, Fortran, Lisp, Modula-2, Objective-C, Objective-Fortran, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Python, Visual Basic, XML etc...
Some of the above languages are in fact useless in that another language exists which is stronger in every single way than them. But at least 10 of those languages are considerably useful under complementary circumstances.
we11er
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,035
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey let's stop with the "what language is better" thing, it will go nowhere, and depends on so many things.
With regards to the original post, the borland compiler is one of the best ones out there, along with MS - the reason it didn't work on your computer is probably because it couldn't find the include/library directory which you need to configure.
With regards to the original post, the borland compiler is one of the best ones out there, along with MS - the reason it didn't work on your computer is probably because it couldn't find the include/library directory which you need to configure.
