> Quincy 99
> Code::Blocks
> Dev-C++
You do know the difference between an IDE and a compiler right?
Because all of those things are IDEs which basically come 'out of the box' with the MinGW port of gcc as the actual compiler.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Yes all true, but it has a place. If you need scratch memory allocated dynamically it can be quite convenient. For example if I'm doing a bunch of matrix operations, or even a bunch of rotations using quaternions for graphics applications, I'd like to be able to allocate some temp memory of small but possibly unknown size; use it for my calculations and then discard it.
I suppose also, if you want to get a little more sophisticated you can try to increase your stack size. I know how to do that in assembly language, but I'm not sure about the various C compilers. Microsoft no doubt has some pragmas that support it and maybe gcc does to. Unfortunately MS has decided in recent versions of their compilers that inline assembly is simply not necessary any more.
quincy 99 is a bit obscure but I'd love to find out more about it. Is it a preprocessor that outputs C code? Is it fully C99 compliant eg VLAs and complex number support?
Dev-C++ will be gcc based and hence has their C99 limitations (eg no VLAs and no complex number support). By the way the reason why I want C99 complex number support is that a complex number is essentially double c[2] ; an array of 2 doubles. That plays nicely with Fortran which is why they chose this.
Pelles I am well aware of. It is missing several C99 features as well. VLAs are only partially supported, if they are dirt simple. I don't think for example you could dynamically allocate an array of pointers to some other complex type and I don't think it would allocate multidimensional arrays (not that I ever use C multi-D arrays.) Also of course, no one supports complex.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
Yup I've seen the list. Have you seen the price list? I think Dinkumware's C99 libraries are about $200 and then the front end from Edison Design costs some money, and then you still need a valid C89 compiler, which I suppose you could get for free. Then there is the cost of an IDE if you use that sort of thing and who knows if it plays nicely with C99 etc. etc.
In other words the support for C99 isn't exactly overwhelming.