Visual C++ Express Edition 2005 question

Whenever you add new code to a project, it needs to be built again (the new code compiled, and then linked so you can run it). That is what the system is telling you. When you answer "yes", the build is done and then you can run it.

You should try Linux and GCC.

Oh ok that makes sense. Thanks

I have a rather large stack of c/c++ books that are

available--not Visual stuff, plain old C and C++ books.

If you are serious and are anywhere close to the Pacific Northwest, I can put in an e-mail address.

I'm in southern California, and yes I am serious. What is the difference between Visual C++ and "plain" C++?

Sort of like describing the difference between a plain ASCII

text editor and Microsoft Word.

They both do word processing, one complicates it.

Visual C++ automates a lot of steps, creates and tracks projects, some version control, you (almost) always work at a standard Windows screen.

Plain (many versions) C++, you work at a plain old black/white, blue/white, whatever screen, type commands, save, compile, link ...

Visual anything sort of assumes basic programming knowledge. It is sort of like using statistics software. The software does not teach you statistics--that knowledge is assumed.

Visual C++ has a lot of "things" available. Things that you would have to create by yourself (or find on the 'net and download).

And quite a bit more.

Why not move to C# or VB.NET? Advantages?

C++ is a low level language compared to C# or Java or anythign like that.

program wrote: Why not move to C# or VB.NET? Advantages?

Either C++ or C# will work -- I think the books that Microsoft puts out (Build a Program Now? series) are decent for anyone trying to skip a lot of foundation stuff. The C# book is about $20. Downloads are free from Microsoft Web site.

They both have a lot of free support areas on the \'net.

If you aren\'t concerned with underlying programming basics, either will work well for a beginner.

I never went into C# from C/C++, managed to leave writing code several years ago.

There is no \"best\" program -- find out which one you like to learn, find out if it does what you want to write, nowadays versatility is demanded more than indepth proficiency (at early stages). A little Java, a little SQL, a little HTML, a little XML -- bbbyyy

The answer:

http://blogs.msdn.com/adam_nathan/archive/2005/06/03/425043.aspx

I second moving to C# .NET. If you're more into forms programming C++ has some power C# doesn't, but, if you're looking at web development, C# is where Microsoft is putting its emphasis. In 3-5 years C++ will be phased out by Microsoft as a major development language, though everyone else will be still using it.

Also, there are some improvements over C++ since memory management is already dealt with by garbage collection. Plus, the fact that Microsoft mimiced everything good about Java in the C# development makes it much more robust as a high-level language than C++ could ever be.

Some (most?) consideration still needs to be given to what a person wants to do with the program.

I spent weeks using XML -- never had a need for anything else. The task at hand should guide the decision, not Microsoft's tool of the month.

The link you use mentions a person not knowing how/where/why a header file was used/entered/referenced. This is fundamental programming--the Visual packages often (too often) presume a lot of basic knowledge.

A person can get a free (yes, I know there are free Visual packages) C/C++ compilers easily, get a smallish book and in a week or two have the basics understood. The rest of learning to program takes somewhere around 137 years.

"C++ is a low level language compared to C# or Java or anything like that."

No!

C++ is like Java in that it is type-safe and object oriented, same with C#. They just offer different languages. Java can be compiled once and run anywhere on other machines that have the Java VM run. C++ needs to be compiled for each architecture type you want to run it on.

Not sure about C#, but I believe it may run through an interpreter as well.

There are some differences between Visual C++ and standard C++. Google around for them, mainly Visual C++ is a little lacks in forcing certain conventions that GCC would not compile on since it adheres more to the C++ standard.

If you want to learn to program for a hobby C++ is fine. See if you can write programs without using the standard template library (STL) to really test what you have learned.

I've been coding in C since the early 1980's and have done some very large projects. I say stay the hell away from C# or any Microsoft proprietary crap (unless you work specifically in a Microsoft shop). I use Visual C for writing commercial Windows apps but I try to stay away from anything specific to Visual.

If you're just starting out I recommend getting Miracle C. It's simple enough to not confuse a beginner. Doesn't have tons of bells and whistles but is plenty functional. I believe you can download it for free and then it's $19 or some such to register it if you like it. As mentioned by others GCC is another route to consider.

If you're just interested in learning to program, you might want to give a look at Python. I think it's a much better first language than C/C++.

C++ is a step or two above low level language by the traditional definitions of programming language levels.

Machine code is at the bottom.

Then ANSI C, Assembler ...

BASIC, COBOL, and Pascal are high level languages by traditional definition.

It used to stop with the next level which included C++ and its variations, derivatives, and object-oriented off-shoots.

Then came the various shells that hide so much of the programming (the actual writing of code).

Somewhere in the past few years, the terms "third generation" and "fourth generation" languages became common references.

Sort of depends on how esoteric you want to get with the definition.

For a beginner (this thread's originator) C++ is a high level language, but would do just fine as a learning tool.

Yes.

The very ability of java to be compiled once and run anywhere requires a virtual machine between the code and the computer. Not so with C++. This is why C++ low level language compared to Java. It is the same reason why a C++ program must be compiled for different platforms.

And the type safety of C++ is still quite easily and often unintentionally circumvented.

Visual C++ is just the name of Microsoft's compiler/development environment for C++. When writing C++, the Visual C++ compiler will recognize some Microsoft-specific extensions which do not exist in Standard C++. However these are easily avoided.

Visual C++'s ISO Standard C++ compliance is actually quite stellar these days, though it certainly was not so a few years ago.

You are confusing the phrase low level. Low level traditional refers to assembly. Whereas C, C++, etc are high level languages. Because you need to recompile for a different architecture does not make it low-level, it makes it non-portable.

Haha the discussion in this thread has gone way over my head. I am a grad student in engineering and I noticed that many jobs "prefer" that you know some sort of programming like C++, FORTRAN, etc. I just figured C++ would be the most useful for whatever engineers (not computer sci or computer eng) do with programming. Correct me if I am wrong. Any other insight would be helpful too.

If you get a basic understanding of C/C++ (either) you will have enough of an understanding of basic (not BASIC) programming fundamentals to satisfy most needs.

It's just a foundation in cause you want (need?) more.

If you are a starving grad student and need a book or two on C ++, give me an e-mail and I'll contact you.

That would be awesome man.

absolutelectronica@yahoo.com

That isn't my primary e-mail, but I'd rather not give out my school e-mail on LetsRun.

csstud wrote:

You are confusing the phrase low level. Low level traditional refers to assembly. Whereas C, C++, etc are high level languages. Because you need to recompile for a different architecture does not make it low-level, it makes it non-portable.

No, you are simply not getting the meaning. I am using "low level" in a relative sense, not an absolute one, as was the poster you responded to.