|
In vb, I use XMLTextWriter and XMLTextReader while creating a class of an XSD model file. I'm really good at it.
Just thought doing it in c++ would be a very long journey, but overall, I need to write a ton of XML configuration files for my program anyways, so the journey begins tomorrow.
Thanks Chuck.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows? !Windows? - I know, "winsock" might be a clue 
If you are using Windows, why bother playing using sockets and use WinINet, it will do all the address translations, proxy-crap, etc for you.
The sequence there would be
InternetOpen()
InternetOpenURL()
HttpQueryInfo()
InternetReadFile()
for the URL, you'd just pass "http://www.website.com/updates/siteAdministrator.exe.txt". Use HttpQueryInfo() to find out how much output is coming back and InternetReadFile() to fetch it all.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know about it!
Does sound easier. That's why I was looking for ideas.
I'll check it out.
FYI:
It's hard to find solutions when you don't even know what to call them, let alone know that they exist.
Thanks Chuck.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I was wondering if any of you'll know any native compilers or compilers the use the very, very first form/version of C++ (like it came from Bjarne Stroustrip) and also some C compilers, try to suggest free ones.
Regards,
Brandon T. H.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not certain I understand what you want.
You want the first "C++" compiler (or probably at that time C compiler that support the C++ extensions) ?
For free C/C++ compilers, have a look at GCC and G++.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I'm not certain I understand what you want.
Maximilien wrote: You want the first "C++" compiler
Yes, the very first form of C++, or some un-managed C++ compilers.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandon T. H. wrote: Yes, the very first form of C++, or some un-managed C++ compilers.
There's a big difference. Most free C++ ones only compile 'unmanaged' (that is native) C++ (even the Microsoft C++ one compiles the native C++, it is NOT 'only for managed C++'). On the other hand, C++ has evolved (improved) and you'll probably find that an updated compiler is way better than an old one.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
True...but the lower the version, it works on almost any computer.
Hint: The .NET (managed) C++/CLI requires .NET framework installation (and also internet to install it).
So what would you say is better overall...
|
|
|
|
|
It is better having a modern C++ compiler (NOT a C++/CLI one*, C++/CLI is NOT standard C++, is a Microsoft 'extension'). Modern C++ compilers produce native code like older ones do (very outdated C++ compiler, e.g. turbo C++, produce code not running on modern computers).
(*) Or use the 'C++/CLI enabled' compiler for compiling standard C++ code. As I said before, Microsoft compiler CAN produce native (not requiring the .NET framework) code.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
How would you do that, could you show me like going into the menus into the "Microsoft Visual C++ compiler"?
|
|
|
|
|
On Visual Studio 2005 (the one I have here) click the menu item New->Project and then choose one of either Win32 or MFC project templates.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks...appreciate it
|
|
|
|
|
You might have to do some digging around to find those old compilers.
'Lattice C' was the first C compiler I ever used. It was available for DOS and was used by NASA in the 1980s.
The first C++ compilers weren't really compilers. There were pre-compilers. They would convert the C++ code to C code, then you'd compile and link the C code it produced.
|
|
|
|
|
Google for 'turbo c++' There are lots of free downloads of the ancient Borland products, back to the days when the c++ standard was still evolving.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to find a 64-bit version of Turbo...none of them seem to work on my computer. (Compatbility problems...)
|
|
|
|
|
Turbo C++ 2.0 is still available on some websites to download.
But I am rather confused by this post. Why would you need the old compiler? and as for the unmanaged part, C++ modern compiler are unmanaged too. the CLI version of C++ is different. (just wondering)
|
|
|
|
|
The lower the version, the chanes of it working on any computer is increased.
|
|
|
|
|
It will/might work on computers of that era, but not on new computers.
You will need to have a DOS (16bit) virtual machine running. (have a look at dosbox)
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Not true, most old compilers are designed for specific systems just the same. If you want a compiler that works anywhere then go for the GNU versions (gcc/g++) which need to be configured and built on the target system; of course this means you need a previous compiler to build it. You have not said which platform you are targeting so it's not easy to recommend anything else. However I would recommend any of the Express Editions[^] for Windows, gcc for Linux/Unix, and a straightjacket for Mac.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul Rajat Singh wrote: Turbo C++ 2.0
Something tells me that wasn't the first C++ compiler...
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: that wasn't the first C++ compiler
No it isn't, but it compiles in standard C++. But your right on that part, who knows what was the very first native C++ compiler was...
|
|
|
|
|
Brandon T. H. wrote: I was wondering if any of you'll know any native compilers or compilers the use
the very, very first form/version of C++
The 'first' C++ compiler, CFront, actually produced C code as the output. Which might not be what you expect a compiler to do but which does fit the definition.
You can find source code for CFront. To compile CFront you will need some non-trivial knowledge of C and make files. You will also probably need to make modifications as C wasn't standarized at the time so the library APIs are likely different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Would you do all this in a project? for CFront?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
