|
No bash, and no make, if one can avoid it.
But for C programming, as per original post, there's for example Pelle's C, which is not only a fraction of the size of VS, but also Freeware. Commercially, then there is Embarcadero's Delphi/C++Builder/RAD Studio, and FreePascal/Lazarus are an Open Source Object Pascal option.
All of those are smaller and easier to use than VS. But it seems that some people just stick to VS because of their masochistic tendencies, just like a lot of macOS users think they just have to punish themselves by using XCode...
|
|
|
|
|
I TOTALLY disagree. The code I am working with is just a simple basic C libary. In VS I chose static library, etc. The problem is VS is way too complicated, trying to do to many things for too many types of language applications. I have used VS off and on for years so I know what I am talking about. I came back to it because of potential conversion of a large graphics application that will be "potentially" ported to it. I am quickly changing my mind as to whether it is worth it or not. The application is mostly window's agnostic.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
jmaida wrote: The problem is VS is way too complicated Well, I totally disagree with you on that. And I have been using it, or its predecessors, for almost thirty years. I have created complete applications, and static and dynamic libraries, using C, C++, C# and even VB.NET, so I also know what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The irony is, I love doing C in VS Code. But, it's harder to get that going property with debugging, etc. than doing C in VS.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, it is not simple once you try to go outside defaults.
|
|
|
|
|
Code Blocks is more straight forward
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
CB is specialized for C/C++ and Fortran, so it will be far simpler than VS, but again, it is not simple. BTW it was my first IDE, so I have some newbie dev experience with it, it was not hell, but it still required serious effort to configure.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to do JUST C, try taking a look at Pelle's C. None of the C++ stuff, just by default, compliant with the latest C standard.
Freeware, but not Open Source. But certainly the price tag fits...
|
|
|
|
|
IT IS VS
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Understood. Thank you. Still not VS fan, but I have no choice.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I happened to know the answer because I encountered the same problem some time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know if you will find it helpful, but here's an article on configuring Visual Studio for a C++ project. It deals with the same issue you face, and might give you more insights into Visual Studio's processes - maybe. DWinLib Build Process. It can be a pain to set up, but gives a lot of power when you've figured it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx David. I will have a look. Shao also gave me some good tips.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 22-Jan-23 15:51pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand. The static library I am trying to create explicitly uses calls to another static library (which I did not create). I understand that both with be involved when used by a third application. I have been using CodeBlocks as my IDE of choice. Much more straight forward and has a great editor. Uses GCC compiler.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 22-Jan-23 15:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with Visual Studio, but only the parameters you have set in your project. Including libraries, whether static or dynamic, is a standard part of VS project files.
|
|
|
|
|
All of which may be true, but...
A developer may complain that accomplishing such-n-such is difficult/tricky/whatever -- and C falls into that category.
Then Microsoft comes along and says that Visual Studio will make it easy (and it definitely makes many things easy).
But if VS doesn't make that one thing easy, then it SUCKS!, I mean it won't satisfy that developer's immediate need.
I don't use Visual Studio much because it generally doesn't do anything I need done, not because I don't like it.
What little C I still do, I don't do with Visual Studio.
I really like C#, which in part may have been designed specifically for Visual Studio, so VS is very good for C# (and .net).
I miss Turbo C.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: A developer may complain that accomplishing such-n-such is difficult/tricky/whatever That is an essential part of the job, and why documentation and help systems are created. I come from an age before Google, so I had to learn the hard way - mainly by buying, and studying, the books.
|
|
|
|
|
'Xactly. Me too. Kids these days expect everything to be handed to them.
I also learned on OpenVMS, which has a debugger, but it's practically unusable.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Kids these days expect everything to be handed to them. He is no kid
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
unusable? I'm offended.
Last week I was debugging some ancient FORTRAN, and it did just fine.
Seriously though, it takes a while for the muscle memory to kick in to remember the keypad commands.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
You are obviously hoopier frood than I.
The main issue I had was that I couldn't get the debugger to display the source lines involves. (DEC C)
"User error" I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
when you start moving source files to different places, sometimes the debugger cannot find what it needs - usually "set source <location>" takes care of the problem. Not that it will come up again...
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Turbo C. I miss thee.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|