Printable View
Alright. Well I know that void main() is improper and all. I have learned that much from you guys at least. My question is why do all of the books I pick up and go through use void main() and not int main() with a return of 0? It's sort of annoying to have to go and then modify every bit of code they give you...
Maybe you're just picking up bad books.
There are lots of people who can program C++. Many of them don't do it correctly, even very intelligent people often don't know every nuance.
Pick up books by the big name people who are the real experts (e.g. Josuttis, Sutter, Meyers, et al) which were written after C++98, and you should be OK.
>>why do all of the books I pick up and go through use void main()
It's simple, the author doesn't know the language he's writing about. If he did, he would know that void main isn't legal in standard C++.
Ok. The book I'm using now (Beginning VC++ 6 by Ivor Horton) and he teaches properly, but I have a couple other books in my shelf that teach using void main().
I hope Salem doesnt see this...
The void main topic is a very common one and is answered hundreds of times within this very forum, as a quick search will prove. Its also found in the FAQ and tutorials, both of which have links in my signature.
I don't use it. Just allot of books do.
I think, that the void main() discussion is the oldest discussion at this board.....
I don't know why the new users have to open threads, instead of searching the board...... that's trash....
And the void main() discussion is so old...... and boring.....
I hope, that Salem doesn't get a heart attack, when he sees another void main() discussion
Poor, poor Salem
Instead of start trashing this board with older discussions, please use the search function.....
just search for: void main, I got 4792 topics.....
Are people even reading the first post? It's not a discussion about which is correct, he asks why authors of books use the wrong form.
I wouldn't read anything in a book from an author which can't even get int main() correct; who knows what else the author will do?
My guess is either a) the authors are not up to date on C++, or b) they save printing space by saving a line each time they have a main, and write hideous code along the lines of this:
Either way, it doesn't discount the book right off as being bad, but I'd be wary of it.Code:void main() {
int x = 3;
f(x); }
>>Are people even reading the first post? It's not a discussion about which is correct, he asks why authors of books use the wrong form.
Which has been covered.
Well, chances are that if the book contains void main(), it was probably written over 6 years ago. So it will probably include lots of other non-standard code. The problem is that it's not 1996 anymore. The language has changed quite a bit in 5 years. I find it annoying that teachers and professors, for whatever reason, continue to use pre-standard books to teach the language. If the book was written after '98 and still contains dinosaurs like void main and headers ending in .h, then the author needs to wake up and smell the 21st century. It is my opinion that we as programmers have a responsibility to keep up with the language standards if we want to get the most out of it. Standard C++ is a much better language than pre-1998 C++.Quote:
Either way, it doesn't discount the book right off as being bad, but I'd be wary of it.
viod main() was still illegal pre-1998. void has never once been a valid return type from main(), in C or in C++. Only in Java is that a legal return type for main().
Technically, there is a loophole in which void main() can be legal C; the people who implement a compiler are technically allowed, under ANSI-C, to permit alternate definitions of main(), including allowing void or any other return type. However, this is not a portable solution, it merely says that implementations may extend the standard to permit other forms of main().
viod main() is not permitted under C++, and there are no loopholes here. In fact, the ANSI-C++ standard states that void main() must produce at the very least, a warning during compilation.
I don't think there are any compilers that will compile your program if you have any functions with a viod return type :) But...yeah. void main() is bad, don't use it, or Salem will beat you with a stick. If that isn't enough incentive to use int main(), I don't know what is.
#define viod void
!!!!!
!!!!!
Use void main and i will come to your house with a dull spoon and castrate you. If that isnt bad enough, im bringing govtcheez and -ken- with me.
Why do people kill, rape, and steal? Why don't we all just get along in peace? Why do authors write void main()?
The answer is simple: people are idiots. If an author doesn't know how to properly define main(), I wouldn't trust him about a darn thing. Get yourself a better book is my advice.
>Use void main and i will come to your house with a dull spoon and castrate you. If that isnt bad enough, im bringing govtcheez and -ken- with me.
Yikes, now that would be scary.
Who's that author that always gets the "not recommended" rating from that academic computing org? You know the one that comes out with like 5 books a year. I wonder if he uses void main()?
Yes he does and no he doesn't:Quote:
Originally posted by swoopy
>Use void main and i will come to your house with a dull spoon and castrate you. If that isnt bad enough, im bringing govtcheez and -ken- with me.
Yikes, now that would be scary.
Who's that author that always gets the "not recommended" rating from that academic computing org? You know the one that comes out with like 5 books a year. I wonder if he uses void main()?
This statement is immediately followed by the example:Code:## You are therefore free to declare main() as required by your
## program.
void main (void)
even though the text of the standard directly opposite states that this is undefined. Indeed, the text I quote makes me wonder whether Schildt believes that:
struct foo { int i; double d; } main (double argc, struct foo argv)
is permitted !
Most of the examples in the book declare main() as void. I won't bother to point them out individually.
Obtained from:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
But later he states:
Indeed it is not. If main() is declared as void, I don't know of any compiler that will return 0. Indeed, the standard forbids it to !Code:## Though most compilers will automatically return 0 when no other
## return value is specified (even when main() is declared as
## void), you should not rely on this fact because it is not
## guaranteed by the standard.
Guys its easy, void main is NOT and NEVER WILL BE C++!!!! PERIOD!
So complex... :rolleyes:
I second that
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
pick
c how to program
by deitel& deitel