What is the best way for someone who is new to both Linux and C programming to program on Linux? A particular IDE or command line?
Printable View
What is the best way for someone who is new to both Linux and C programming to program on Linux? A particular IDE or command line?
I use gcc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection for my compiler, its free and very easy to use, it is run through a terminal. I think all Linux distro come with this (I may be wrong here, probally am) I think you can type gcc in a terminal to see if you do, if you get an error you dont have it, but it is very easy to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweenigma
For learning to program theres some tutorials on this site but I find for myself a book is much more helpful than online tutorials.
Linux comes with at least one C compiler usually. IDE's are useful in various circumstances, but I like a nice fancy text editor while doing everything else on a command line.
You probably won't be doing anything for a long time that will warrant a big IDE with lots of advanced features. Just use one of the gazillion text editors available and stick to the terminal for all the compiling.
Code:alias gcc="gcc -std=c99 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic"
Gcc's C99 support isn't complete yet (which is why the default mode is C90), so most people don't use -std=c99. In addition, there are a few things which are required in C90 but not in C99 (such as an explicit return statement in main()), so using C99 mode makes it less likely that code is C90 compatible. Most people try to write code that is compatible with both C90 (since it's currently the most commonly used standard) and C99 simultaneously. Someday, when compilers catch up to C99, then C90 compatibility can be thrown out the window.
An explicit return from main() is not required in C89/C90 either, robatino. A fair few compilers, however, issue warnings if it is left out.
Your statement "when compilers catch up to C99, then C90 compatibility can be thrown out the window" is incorrect unless only the latest compiler is used. In practice, anyone working on a non-trivial project must support a range of old and new compilers. Compilers catching up to a standard is therefore necessary but not sufficient to justify eliminating compatibility with an older standard.
Are you sure? The FAQ says that an explicit return is required in main() for C89, but not in C99:
http://faq.cprogramming.com/cgi-bin/...&id=1043284376
Gcc appears to confirm this since if you leave out the explicit return, then with all warnings turned on it complains in C90 mode but not in C99 mode.
Edit: The warning I get with "gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" without the explicit return in C90 mode is
foo.c: In function ‘main’:
foo.c:3: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
although it doesn't explicitly say anything about ISO C90 requiring it, as it does with some other kinds of nonstandard code. If I add "-std=c99" this warning goes away.
As sure as I can be going from memory. My copy of the C89/90 standard is in a box at work, so I don't have access to it at the moment.
My copy of the C++ standard, which I happen to have handy, states that reaching the enclosing } of main() has the same effect as "return 0;". Annex C of the C++ standard, which lists incompatibilities between C89/90 and C++, makes no mention of anything like this. Not conclusive, I know, but production of the list of incompatibilities for information purposes was a formal requirement during the C++ standardisation process -- and I'm more inclined to believe in the content of an ISO standard over behaviour of any compiler.
Your going offtopic here ;)
zacs7: Maybe so, but if the FAQ is inaccurate it should be fixed pronto.
grumpy: Another possibility is that in C89 the explicit return may not be required, but without it the return value may be undefined (in this case the FAQ is still inaccurate). Some googling seems to hint at this.
I use Linux all the time (Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 AMD64 version with 2.6.16 kernel) and I mainly use gcc and makefiles. The text editors I use are mostly fte, vim, and Kate. Most of the time I use Kate, which is halfway between a text-editor and an IDE (BTW, I use GNOME . . .).
Why are you using Kate on Gnome?, Gedit is better :)
Geany is not a bad IDE for Linux (GTK)
I'm new at Linux, too. And after using Windows for a long time, it comes a bit strange to do things in terminal. It's like using DOS command prompt in XP, which i don't like very much and find obsolete. I used to do all my work with Dev-C++ and it really made things easy for me. While trying to figure out these things, why some people especially like using command line compilers or text editors? Isn't it time consuming and unuseful? Can somebody explain me this?
Thanks...
To me, a command line is easy to interface with and faster for most things than messing with an IDE to compile a quick test program. I write a lot of console programs anyway. Even when I write GUI programs, I like to write debug information to a console.
It also gives you a lot of control, Also you actually learn what's going on and how to compile a program.
If you asked most Windows programmers how to compile something, they'd probably say Build -> Compile ;)
This thread seems to be going in the direction of "What compiler and/or IDE should I use for C programming on Linux?", so I am moving it to the Tech Board.
Compiling in console can help you understand what's going on, i agree with that, but what about using a command line text editor? What's the point in using them for programming?
I do not know about fte, but I think Vim comes with a GUI version, and either way its unique vi heritage and interface is the point.
This one says "make" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by zacs7
If I happen to be in Linux I like tend to use KWrite or vi - makefiles with both, using a shell for building & testing.
Quote:
but what about using a command line text editor? What's the point in using them for programming?
obsolete, DOS maybe. A linux bash shell? No. bash is windows command prompt on steriods. Take some time to learn what bash can do. Some problems in Linux can be solved with shell scripts alone, and not require writing a program.Quote:
after using Windows for a long time, it comes a bit strange to do things in terminal. It's like using DOS command prompt in XP, which i don't like very much and find obsolete.
Not really. Makefiles take 2 minutes at most to write. (And you do it once per project.) From there, you type "make" and make will rebuild only what needs it. (Dev-C++ uses make behind the scenes.) I used to use Dev-C++, but it was a little braindead in some things... I primarily use Textpad, sometimes Notepad++ (or if I'm not at home). vi in Linux does the nicest job of keeping indentation, everything from tabs inside a function to keeping comments running. (And still gives syntax highlighting etc. If I'd ever take a day or two to learn vi proper, I'd probably know what else it could do...)Quote:
I used to do all my work with Dev-C++ and it really made things easy for me. While trying to figure out these things, why some people especially like using command line compilers or text editors? Isn't it time consuming and unuseful?
vim for creating the C source code
type -> vim hello.c
vim
------
in vim type :wqCode:#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
puts("Hello Cruel World");
return 0;
}
compile --> gcc hello.c -o hello
fire up the program --> ./hello
Hello Cruel World
vim and gcc --- they get the job done :)
This is going to lead to a text-editor war... ;)
Allowing omitting the return 0 was a new thing in the C++ standard and is not allowed in C89. The reason that it is not listed in the incompatibilities section is that that section only lists things that prevent C code from being compiled as C++ code, not things that prevent the other way round. (That would be pretty stupid. You'd have to list every single new feature in C++.) Given that C programs MUST have the return 0, while C++ programs MAY have it, all C programs are valid C++ in that respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
> Allowing omitting the return 0 was a new thing in the C++ standard and is not allowed in C89
I agree, this was a completely stupid thing to add to the C++ standard.
C++ went out of it's way to try to eliminate all implicit behaviour inherited from C (a good thing), then starts adding some of it's own (a bad thing). No other int returning function has this behaviour.
My guess is that it was added as a 'sop' to make all those void main programs easy to change by simply replacing 'void' with 'int' and the program was instantly up to spec. No need to go to the trouble of adding 'return 0;' in the code (oh the pain of a few keystrokes).
*mutters something about being off-topic*