amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (04/08/90)
For those who have SCO UNIX, there is a 'DOS style' debugger - CodeView. SCO also provides 'UNIX style' debuggers. Take your pick. Later, Andrew Mullhaupt
mike@minster.york.ac.uk (04/11/90)
For what it's worth: I use/have used C under UNIX and MSDOS (using TurboC). The integrated environment provided by the latter is great so long as you only want to do the things which it provides. Beyond that, it is generally a pain in the neck. Developing large programs (many thousands of lines) involves a lot more than using an editor, a compiler and a debugger. The big advantage of UNIX is all the other utilities available; SCCS/RCS, grep, ctags, etc. Given a programmable editor (eg., any of the Emacs'es) a fair amount of integration can be managed. I agree with Peter da Silva: if it hasn't got "make", give it a miss (OK, so TurboC has, but not to the UNIX standard :-) mike richardson "Better dead than Red? OK, when the Reds invade, you have my permission to commit suicide. But I object to you including me."
dan@kfw.COM (Dan Mick) (04/13/90)
In article <639822260.25952@minster.york.ac.uk> mike@minster.york.ac.uk writes: >I agree with Peter da Silva: if it hasn't got "make", give it a miss (OK, >so TurboC has, but not to the UNIX standard :-) Mike, what *are* you talking about? What features do you use in UNIX Make that aren't supported by Turbo Make? Now, if you'd been talking about the original Microsoft Make, I'd understand... but I find Turbo Make to be the closest thing to UNIX Make I normally use...
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (04/13/90)
In an article of <11 Apr 90 08:24:21 GMT>, mike@minster.york.ac.uk writes: >I agree with Peter da Silva: if it hasn't got "make", give it a miss (OK, >so TurboC has, but not to the UNIX standard :-) This is what I generally object to in the discussions to exile PC C programmers to some other newsgroup. There seems to be a double standard at work here. Just as PC's are not the only machines with C compilers, neither are the various Unix boxes. Although I can anticipate the usual indignant hue and cry whenever someone asks about int86(), I can just as easily anticipate silence when questions arise about stime(), setuid(), setgid(), pipe(), mount(), getpid(), etc... Just to be difficult, I've often thought about posting questions about open() or ioctl() or some such function, then sitting back to enjoy the back-pedalling when I answer all the helpful folks replying that I was interested in the Turbo C version, not the Unix functions of the same name. <wicked grin> I don't necessarily object to condescending OS bigots, but I would appreciate a little more truth in advertising, or at least some indication that the bigots are conscious of their hauteur. Bob (an unrepentant PC programmer who also works on Unix) Stout
paul@frcs.UUCP (Paul Nash) (04/13/90)
In article <3578@hcx1.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>, brad@SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM (Brad Appleton) writes: > In article <3577@hcx1.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM> leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) writes: > >I bow to all the emacs users that can control the world from within emacs > >with just a few (IMHO) obnoxious keystrokes. What they can achieve ... > > > Not necessarily so. To compile from within vi just use ":!make" which > will run make (or even :!cc foo.c which will run the C compiler), and > > Oh! You say you want to be able to parse the error messages ... > > On some BSD-based Systems (e.g. SunOs) there is a program called "error" Obviously _some_ people out there do know about emacs, but as the poster of the original aritcle was looking for a system similar to TC, there is no reason why s/he should not have top go and buy it. I use Epsilon (by Lugaru) with both DOS & Xenix, and it makes the TruboC environment lokk silly (I have TC 2 aswell, but almost never use it). To run `make', type <ctrl>X-M, and make will run, while the editor tee's the stdout/stderr to the screen and an editor buffer. It will then parse errors, and display them as an editor message while putting the cursor on the line, etc., opening files if needed to get to the problem code. While this is pretty standard with good DOS editors (Brief, etc), it works better than most DOS stuff (no `hidden compiles' - you see the error messages immediately, and keyboard input [eg ^C] gets to the compiler!), and better than bunches of Unix tools. Sure, a nice Unix pipeline and a couple of vi macros will do a similar job _for_free_, but I don't think that that is what the original poster was asking for. BTW: Epsilon is _very_ customisable, but works great straight out the box. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ...!uunet!ddsw1!proxima!frcs!paul paul@frcs.UUCP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
srg@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Steven R Gerber) (04/15/90)
In article <20101.2625840B@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >In an article of <11 Apr 90 08:24:21 GMT>, mike@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > > >I agree with Peter da Silva: if it hasn't got "make", give it a miss (OK, > >so TurboC has, but not to the UNIX standard :-) > >This is what I generally object to in the discussions to exile PC C >programmers to some other newsgroup. There seems to be a double standard at >work here. Just as PC's are not the only machines with C compilers, neither >are the various Unix boxes. Although I can anticipate the usual indignant hue >and cry whenever someone asks about int86(), I can just as easily anticipate >silence when questions arise about stime(), setuid(), setgid(), pipe(), >mount(), getpid(), etc... Just to be difficult, I've often thought about >posting questions about open() or ioctl() or some such function, then sitting >back to enjoy the back-pedalling when I answer all the helpful folks replying >that I was interested in the Turbo C version, not the Unix functions of the >same name. <wicked grin> > >I don't necessarily object to condescending OS bigots, but I would appreciate >a little more truth in advertising, or at least some indication that the >bigots are conscious of their hauteur. > >Bob (an unrepentant PC programmer who also works on Unix) Stout Sounds like a lot of bluster to me. Anyway, I program on both Unix boxes and PCs everyday. I think I like my PC environment better. BUT the fact is none of the makes bundled with compilers are any good (on the PC). The best make available for the PC is ndmake. Get it from your local BBS. It's very similar to the unix make - just ask the NetHack developement team at linc.cis.upenn.edu. Just my $0.02 **************************************************************** * Steven R. Gerber - PAL (Programmer At Large) * srg@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu * Tel: 212-794-8721 * UUCP: ...rutgers!columbia!cunixd!srg * FAX: 212-794-8722 ****************************************************************