| ??? 10/18/10 22:00 Read: times |
#179181 - Which toolchain? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
IF learning the 'C' language is the user's goal,
THEN he needs a toolchain that's uncomplicated by low-level details not involved in his effort. ELSE he'll become entangled in those low-level details and accomplish nothing Yes - that's it! Although I wouldn't go as far as to say he'll accomplish nothing, but his efforts will certainly be frustrated - as has been amply demonstrated elsewhere in this very thread! Where can a PC-user get a toolchain, preferably at no cost, that will not drag him off into the low-level complications of an MCU, Windows, or some specific system-related quagmire. With Windows stuff, the problem is not so much low-level details, but getting dragged off to too-high levels of abstraction! It used to be perfectly possible to use the free versions of both Embarcadero (formerly CodeGear, Borland, etc) and Microsoft tools to generate plain "console" applications. http://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder http://www.microsoft.com/express/D...Visual-CPP MinGW is, "a contraction of 'Minimalist GNU for Windows', is a minimalist development environment for native Microsoft Windows applications" http://www.mingw.org/ I have never used it myself, so have no idea how well it fits (or not) with your criteria! I'd submit that LINUX provides a less-involved 'C' toolchain I very much suspect that you're right yet still suffers from the fact the OS and everything associated with it was designed by persons more concerned with job-security than with producing useful work Yes, that is certainly the impression that I have got on the few occasions that I've had to use it. I personally use DOS and Turbo-C ... I've still got Turbo-C on 5-1/4" floppies somewhere... |
