NO

Author Topic: LccWin32 question  (Read 14363 times)

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« on: January 25, 2006, 10:10:37 pm »
Hi folks!

I'll guess I have to intruduce myself since I'm not a regular member of this board.  - Some time ago I took the initiative to start a support group for LccWin32 (another lcc based development enviroment). We are currently two persons mainaining the support group on our spare time. The reason for this project was mainly to get people together to push forward spesific features from a wishlist (some sort of voting for the most interesting feature). Very few was interested in paying for getting stuff done so this project is currently on ice for a while.
What we are doing meanwhile is to gather usefull information that (all) C coder's might have use for ( http://home.online.no/~sengelsg/lccwin32sg/index.html ).

Also I'm a bit curious of the main reasons the users here are prefering PellesC instead of LccWin32. I'm asking this question mainly to find out what some of you don't like about LccWin32 or what features you like in PellesC that are missing a counterpart in LccWin32 or anything else that might come into your mind.

Thanks for your answers in advance :)

Offline frankie

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
LccWin32 question
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2006, 12:11:31 am »
I was a user of LCCWin32, then I meet PellesC.
Why I like it some more than LCCWin32?
Let say:
- PellesC is under development and everybody could partecipate
- Pelle is a very cordial guy (as Jacob Navia is anyway) and open to requests and suggestions without a moderator that continuosly let you remember that life is hard and nothing is really gratis (as you told in your inquiry your project seems to be at stack because of loss of money
- PellesC is free for personal and commercial use (LCCWin32 is free only for personal use).
- PellesC is more compliant with M$, so many sources could be compiled with minor changes
- PellesC supports WinCE ARM processor
- Pelles IDE is much more complete than the free version of LCCWin32 (the resource editor is wonderful).
- PellesC now supports multitarget projects

Now let consider the positive points of LCCWin32:
- Superior debugger (this is the really strong point)
- Versioning system, but removed in the last versions so.....

Garvan

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2006, 01:22:01 pm »
I think frankie covered most of what needs to be said. I never liked the Lcc-Win32 IDE, despite several attempts, and I took to PellesC IDE at first try. The IDE makes all the difference.

I was a bit dissatisfied with how information about the different 'versions' of Lcc-win32 is presented in the documentation, but don’t wish to discuss this further here.

I suspect iLcc-Win32 is no longer available for free download?

Garvan

EDIT:

I should have mentioned ARM support as a major attraction. After studying the supported specs, I purchased a compatible PocketPC to experiment with.

Garvan

Ngan Lo

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2006, 05:20:57 pm »
i was Lccwin32 user too.

i use PellesC b'cuz :
- Free for any usage
- more compliant with M$ lib, most 3rd party lib works with PellesC
- better IDE, i like it very much
(maybe i'm wrong, b'cuz i haven't use Lccwin32 for a long time...)

recently, PellesC's debugger is pretty good enough, for me, & also makes me start to consider about PPC development, PellesC is cool ~~!

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2006, 05:55:35 pm »
FYI: The version system is removed from LccWin32 due to the fact that very few (if any) used it. Also I would like to add that LccWin32 is still free (at the time) for download and the new resource editor is now included in the free package. Also lot's of things have been fixed and there's now a propper bugtracking system available (bugzilla).

Quote from: "Garvan"

I was a bit dissatisfied with how information about the different 'versions' of Lcc-win32 is presented in the documentation, but don’t wish to discuss this further here.

This is REALLY valuable info - Feel free to send me a private msg if you feel like sharing the details with me (confidentialy).

This is very valuable info from all of you, so thanks very much. I hope for more replys to this topic. Also if someone would comment a bit more about price it would be great. For example would some of you consider going back to LccWin32 if PellesC became "payware" or doesn't price matter (that much)?

Anyway looking forward to more replys (thumbs up for all of you for giving very good pointers to what's good / not good)

kobold

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2006, 08:56:21 pm »
I am using LccWin32 in my company (if i have time for programing - it is not my job  :wink: ), and i am using the versioning system! (a usefull feature. I zip my PellesC files to bypass this problem)
There are also some small utilities to keep track of your project.
File size is excellent.

But i found the PellesC looks better, and more complete than the naked LccWin32 IDE. This forum is a great help and a big plus too.

The help files are both good.

I am still using PellesC (@ home) and LccWin32 (@ company).

Offline frankie

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
LccWin32 question
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2006, 09:54:02 pm »
WaxHead,
I currently use many compiling tools, PellesC, LCC-Win32 and also the great GCC MingW and DJGPP ports, but, as I said, my preference is for PellesC. But talking about curiosity, triggered by your last post, may I ask you why you, as C support group, just focalized on one compiler system and not on the whole world of free tools available on the net. Many people that originally supported only LCC-Win32 now support both of them.
You will excuse me, but your post seems a commercial advising for LCC-Win32  :wink: Are you plotting a new product strategy for LCC-Win32 and this is, how I can say, a market survey  :lol: .
About the price I also use M$ tools, but I'm fan for free tools developed by free net communities, lot of work no money, A kind of Don Quixotte against giants. What if PellesC will become not free? Sure there will be another free compiler available. I'm optimist!  :mrgreen:

P.S. I just downloaded the last version with the full Resource editor, but I still cannot open high res icons, no animated cursors, no movies, no custom resources.

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2006, 01:45:55 am »
Quote from: "frankie"
But talking about curiosity, triggered by your last post, may I ask you why you, as C support group, just focalized on one compiler system and not on the whole world of free tools available on the net. Many people that originally supported only LCC-Win32 now support both of them.
You will excuse me, but your post seems a commercial advising for LCC-Win32  :wink: Are you plotting a new product strategy for LCC-Win32 and this is, how I can say, a market survey  :lol: .
About the price I also use M$ tools, but I'm fan for free tools developed by free net communities, lot of work no money, A kind of Don Quixotte against giants. What if PellesC will become not free? Sure there will be another free compiler available. I'm optimist!  :mrgreen:

Well first of all let's make one thing perfectly clear. This is not a attempt to "steal" users from PellesC just in case any of you or anyone else got that impression. Also I have no financial interest in LccWin32 and all support work is done for free in cooperation with another person. However what we are trying to do as a LccWin32 support group is to raise the interest and also try to garther as much resourced as possible to help LccWin32 programmers. If this resources can help others that's great but the main reason we started our support group was to back up the LccWin32 community. The fact that Q-Software-Solutions may earn money on our effort is a bonus back to us since this will result in a better development enviroment. What's important here is that LccWin32 can perhaps learn something from PellesC and vice versa.

Also you are absolutely right in the fact that I'm doing a little "underground" market survy ;) Honesly I wasn't under the impression that it seems like I was trying to hide my intention from any of you. Anyway the reason that I do this is that I search for things that can be made better in LccWin32 and also what things people believe are the strong points and by doing this I hope to compile a list over positive and negative stuff that might can help out LccWin32 development in such a way that what's important to the users can be focused on. Something I believe that everyone will benefit from.
I hope this answered (at least a little) why we are focusing mainly on LccWin32. Everyone is ofcourse welcome to contribute to our support page and every info available there may be usefull for other C programmers too.

Quote from: "frankie"
but I'm fan for free tools developed by free net communities, lot of work no money, A kind of Don Quixotte against giants

hehe yes me to ;) I've written a tool called DriveGLEAM as a direct response some other utilities (DriveLED and Softled) since I think that such simple(???) programs should be made free. However I have nothing against non-gigant software houses trying to make a few bucks to carry on their work. I'm pretty sure most of you will agree with me here.

Offline frankie

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
LccWin32 question
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2006, 02:31:36 am »
Svein,
I was of course samewhat joking, anyway may I suggest you to continue on sw and don't try an actor career?  :lol:
I see that we agree on many points, you too like "pasta" I guess?
Ok be serious, I think that the people that post answers here gave you enough points to work on, and we all hope this will give more money to the tools developers, with the sales to commercial companies, and the better development would give us better tools.
So go on...... O:)

Freddy

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2006, 03:03:26 am »
I used to use Lcc-Win32 when I didn't know Pelles C. But Lcc-Win32 have great extensions.
Now I use Pelles C for C programs, because it's free, light-weight and have great IDE with very optimizing compiler/linker that is compatible with MS tools.
And I use Mingw with Dev-C++ for C++ stuff or something that needs special libraries, because dev-c++ make it easy to install such libraries with auto-update feature included.
And soon, if I have money I'll buy VC++ at my school with small price.

I also agree that both Pelles C and Lcc-win32 can learn with it other. (Lcc-win32 can have better IDE and support /merge at the linker, and Pelles C can learn some features from Lcc-win32.)

Just one curiosity: Why most libraries have built-in support with explanation on how to install on: VC++, Borland C++, Mingw, GCC (linux), Lcc-win32 and I 've never seen this with Pelles C?
What makes Lcc-win32 more popular than Pelles C?
I find lot of wonderful tools that are not as popular as others. Example:
FASM (Flat assembler) is just perfect for me and MASM32 is more popular.
Pelles C is the best C compiler/IDE/linker I've ever seen and Lcc-win32 is more popular.

I can't understand this...

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2006, 12:09:13 pm »
Quote from: "frankie"
Svein,
I was of course samewhat joking, anyway may I suggest you to continue on sw and don't try an actor career?  :lol:

Ouch....  :oops:  I assume you found "Violence amongst neighbours" at Stone Oakvalley studios? - hehe ok I admidt it, I can't act :roll: - I'm a great liar tough :mrgreen:
Quote from: "frankie"

Ok be serious, I think that the people that post answers here gave you enough points to work on

Yeah let's be serous; Yes I have something to work with but taking into account the amount of people that have answered to this post (so far) it would have been great if more of you either backed up some of the oppinions that allready are here or throw in a new one. That way I the result will be a bit more "valid" since as many as possible have given their view on this.

Quote from: "Freddy"
Just one curiosity: Why most libraries have built-in support with explanation on how to install on: VC++, Borland C++, Mingw, GCC (linux), Lcc-win32 and I 've never seen this with Pelles C?
What makes Lcc-win32 more popular than Pelles C?
I find lot of wonderful tools that are not as popular as others. Example:
FASM (Flat assembler) is just perfect for me and MASM32 is more popular.
Pelles C is the best C compiler/IDE/linker I've ever seen and Lcc-win32 is more popular.


...sigh... the world is not fair it seems. Why Windoze and not Linux? Why PC's and not Amiga, Why Intel and not AMD, Why USB/Firewire when we have Ethernet(??), Why IDE and not SCSI, Why Ford and not Volvo etc... etc... etc...

Mordred

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2006, 06:31:47 pm »
I was an lcc-win32 user - and frankly, I hated it
I remember that it even has a "string" datatype and supports operator
overloading - they call it a "modern" C-Compiler.
Please, what kind of C compiler/language is this .. It doesn't
sound like C at all.

No wonder that lcc-win32 C code fails to compile on other compilers
without question.

The IDE wasn't even worth using (I used PN instead)

Oh.. And also:

lcc-win32 : Commercial
PellesC    : Free   :)

In other words : you can't sell anything you've compiled in lcc-win32 without buying a so-called "compiler-license"

Sorry for my temper, but that's what pops into my mind when I think
of lcc-win32.

Thanks to Mr. Pelle for creating PellesC, it rules :) - at least in my eyes.[/code]

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2006, 10:53:33 pm »
Quote from: "Mordred"

Sorry for my temper, but that's what pops into my mind when I think
of lcc-win32.


In my oppinion this reply is very valuable :) A little blowout can be quite refreshing sometimes hehe, it's always very nice to know what can be done diffrent.

Correction: LccWin32 doesn't have a string datatype (but a optional library) and operator overloading isn't something you have to use if you don't like it :) and so far most (of my) code written for LccWin32 compiles in PellesC just fine without any modifications.

EDIT: here's a little someting regarding operator overloading
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/27fdfe554d20859f/0656a0bffc3995d0?

Waxhead

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2006, 01:04:03 am »
Quote from: "Mordred"

Oh.. And also:

lcc-win32 : Commercial
PellesC    : Free   :)

In other words : you can't sell anything you've compiled in lcc-win32 without buying a so-called "compiler-license"


I missed this in the last post but isn't it a bit unfair that you are gonna make money on something other people have done for free? isn't it more fair to pay ONCE and then (hopefully) make all the money you want on your own software? I know PellesC doesn't make this restriction but do you think it's unfair to ask for a little something ONCE ? I know I'm perhaps a bit dramatic now but to me this sounds a bit like asking Pelle for the source of PellesC for free and then sell PellesC (renamed) as a own product and earn money on it.

Mordred

  • Guest
LccWin32 question
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2006, 10:01:06 am »
I'm sorry for the above answer.. I thought I'd just point it out
because I saw many "lcc-fanatics" who keep praising lcc-win32 WITHOUT
paying attention to legal matters!

The compiler is perfect.. But the IDE needs a lot of work, it somehow reminds me of old 16bit apps and stuff..

lcc-win32 is good for commercial work, but it fails in the personal-usage field where PellesC is better! (and beginner-friendly as I said previously)

Quote
I missed this in the last post but isn't it a bit unfair that you are gonna make money on something other people have done for free? isn't it more fair to pay ONCE and then (hopefully) make all the money you want on your own software? I know PellesC doesn't make this restriction but do you think it's unfair to ask for a little something ONCE ? I know I'm perhaps a bit dramatic now but to me this sounds a bit like asking Pelle for the source of PellesC for free and then sell PellesC (renamed) as a own product and earn money on it.


I use PellesC personally, I just want something for coding small tools
and such minor stuff, I don't want to sell anything.

Sorry for starting a flame-war. Maybe I got carried away a bit.