Code: Show/Hide Miracle C Compiler (r3.2), written by bts.
line 3: #include iostream.h ignored--file not found. Compiling C:\Program Files\Miracle C\test.c main C:\Program Files\Miracle C\test.c: line 7: variable 'cout' not found '<< "Hello World!"' aborting compile |
Code: Show/Hide // my first program in C++
#include <iostream.h> int main () { cout << "Hello World!"; return 0; } |
Code: Show/Hide #include <iostream>
using namespace std; int main () { cout << "Hello World!"; return 0; } |
Code: Show/Hide #include <iostream>
int main () { std::cout << "Hello World!"; return 0; } |
Code: Show/Hide #include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { printf("Hello World!"); return 0; } |
Quote: |
helloworld.cpp(5) : error C3861: 'printf': identifier not found, even with argument-dependent lookup |
Code: Show/Hide #include <windows.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { system("echo Hello World!"); return 0; } |
Code: Show/Hide #include <string>
class MyApp : CWinApp { private: static char hello_world = "Hello world!"; }; MyApp myapp; BOOL MyApp::InitInstance() { string mystring("echo "); mystring += "hello_world; system(mystring); return TRUE; } |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
Use of iostreams and strings = more CPU cycles = more heat on whatever processor you choose. |
SamHughes wrote: |
Ekted, why do you hate iostreams? |
Cerium wrote: |
Learning to program with a high level language like VB or Java is certainly easy, but it will probably take longer to completely understand whats going on... |
Ekted wrote: |
The point is that if you learn VB or Java or C++ (using iostreams) as your first foray into programming then you will NEVER understand what is going on. |
Cerium wrote: |
People like them make people like you worth that much more money. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
These are doing too much without explaining what is going on. There are those who feel that you should hit the ground running. I say this is how you create a programmer with no clue (ie 95% of programmers). If I taught an intro programming class at a college, the first month would be no coding at all. Create a class full of people who can debug--who understand how things are laid out--who, when they learn coding syntax, can understand what is happening underneath. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
This is also the flaw of teaching Java to beginners. There IS no underneath. You learn that you can do things any way you want, and that you don't even have to care about data types and heap, because the Java system does all that for you. If you choose one way of implementation over another, you have no basis for knowing if it's 10x more complex. Java is all "magic" underneath. That's like saying, "Let's not try to understand the Universe; that's God's job." This is a bullshit attitude, and one that programmers should not have ever. |
Bak wrote: |
...even though you can't pass objects on the stack like in C++... |
Code: Show/Hide String Function (String s)
{ String ret; // do something return (ret); } |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
The point is that if you learn VB or Java or C++ (using iostreams) as your first foray into programming then you will NEVER understand what is going on. |
SamHughes wrote: |
Why do you make blatantly incorrect statements like this? |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
[..]
Explain to me then, for example, how you would learn about what kind of memory allocation Java does when you do: int i = 1; |
Dr Brain wrote: |
Explain why you need to know. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
[..]
Thank you for proving my point. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
Explain to me then, for example, how you would learn about what kind of memory allocation Java does when you do: int i = 1; |
SamHughes wrote: |
You could either learn assembly language later on... |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
Exactly. Learning Java doesn't get you 1 inch down the road to fundamental knowledge. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
Exactly. Learning Java doesn't get you 1 inch down the road to fundamental knowledge. So you will always have to "start from scratch" if you will even EVER try after learning to write cheap and dirty apps. |
Cerium wrote: |
Why would anyone say anything about threadding not being possible in VB? They raved about the possiblity of threading when the 'addressof' keyword was added in VB5.
Not to mention, there were also other objects and .ocx utilities which could provide similar behavior. |
Dr Brain wrote: |
...and the almighty buffer overflows. |
Mr Ekted wrote: |
Either you let a programmer do anything, or you hold their hand and police them. You clearly prefer the latter. I look both ways before crossing the street. |
Doc Flabby wrote: |
But have you ever tried do it |
Doc Flabby wrote: |
Its easier in vb5 - multithreading acctually works how it is meant to, microsoft broke the "easy" way that used AddressOf and CreateProcess API in vb6 . |
Dr Brain wrote: |
And you bumped a 6 month old topic. |
MGBF wrote: |
Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:57 pm |