Is Pelles C a dead fish?

[CommonTater]

Sure is quiet around here these days...
 
In the last while I've been venturing out and reading other programming forums, looking for an active community of C-99 users and Pelles C users in particular.  Nada... most everywhere I went, C itself seems to be relegated to a "secondary topic" on C++ forums or even co-mingled with C++ posts, lacking it's own forum.  And in all that virtually no mention of Pelles C anywhere.
 
Back in the CBoard days, the common opinion was that Pelles C is a beginner's tool, fine for learning on but not much good for the serious programmer.  Common complaints were that it's "incomplete", missing many of the headers needed to produce commercial quality code... no COM, no DirectX, no DShow, and so on.  Another frequent observation I saw is that it's "abandonware", as Pelle himself appears to have lost interest in the project and I am, reluctantly, forced to agree... it does look that way.  Then, finally, the thing I noticed least often but most strongly: "People haven't gotten behind the project".
 
This last thing... not getting behind it... is probably the one thing that's been true since I joined up here.  Indeed Pelles C has most everything you need for general application development.  But on other programming forums dedicated to a single package I've watched people climb into the project and take it to it's limits.
 
The D language compiler and forums are a good example, so many people got behind this compiler they ended up with two huge, competing, run time libraries that were 100% written by D users.  C++ seems to have garnered even more support as I found huge repositories of C++ libraries and classes on places like SourceForge, etc. 
 
Pelles C is a very capable product that, far as I can see lacks only "the rest" that would come after Pelle gave us a really great starting point.  For reasons wholley mysterious, people simply never got behind it and fleshed it out the way they have on so many other projects...
 
I'm not surprised that Pelle's visits are shorter and further between... From his perspective, his project despite all it's powers must shurely look like a "dead fish" that somehow never caught on.
 
Now, let me be very clear about this.  I'm not writing to chastize anyone; I would probably be the first to deserve it anyway. Rather, I'm hoping to encourage at least a few of us to pick up the reins and support the project by sharing source code, headers and libs, converted libraries... whatever you can give that expands on Pelle's "starting point". 
 
For example: Most of my AddIns are things I actually use for my own projects in Pelles C, either to solve problems or make the job easier. It takes me only a few seconds to zip them up and upload them and then everyone has the chance to try them out for themselves.
 
So, lets ask ... Is Pelles C a dead fish, or is it worth supporting?

[defrancis7]

Hi Tater!  You mentioned that you have visited other programming forums and have noticed yourself that the C programming language appears to be fading away as today's programmers are turning to other languages that are 'cool', 'the newest thing', etc.  If I remember correctly, you mentioned in these very forums that MicroSoft itself is moving toward C++ and C# not too long ago.

As you said, (in another topic), today's programmers are becoming more like appliance operators, pasting this piece of code from here and that piece of code from there to form their programs, without really understanding the code and the reason that it was written in the manner that it is.  I would even go as far as to say that MicroSoft discourages people from trying to write code, even for fun or  experimentation.  (Me, I am just a hobbyist.  I am not trying to make a living out of programming.)  I think it was with the release of either Win98 or Me2000 that MS no longer included QBasic (or any other language for the user) with the OS.  Agreed that the OS is much more complex now than it was then.  I look in the bookstores and on-line and there are very few books on how to write code; but, plenty on using applications that are already written.  It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I came across Petzold's book on using the Windows API.

Anyway, enough of me ranting and raving,  Happy New Year,
David E.
 

[Bitbeisser]

Well, ... 

I certainly I would not call it a dead fish, it doesn't smell like it at least just yet.

One issue that I see is that it is simply a plain C compiler, something that nowadays is considered an "old" language.
Nothing really wrong with that, it is a tried and proven programming language, which actually is still used a lot in professional development.
But it is not an "easy" programming language either, making it hard for beginners to get "the hang of it", specially if they are skipping on learning the (programming language depended) basics of programming in the first place...

But nowadays, a lot of people (specially beginners) are much more drawn to the "new and shiny", like C# or D, which you mentioned. Or things like Python, Ruby, Haskell, Eiffel, Erlang and a lot more fluff, it sometimes seems to be like a race for the "new programming language of the month".
A lot of those seem to have their own issue, So while D seems to be fairly popular (at least there is a lot of rave about it), those two RTL you mentioned are IMHO a huge drawback, as they are widely incompatible with each other and you have to settle on one or the other, with neither one being a "one size fits all"...

The lack of header files for those things that you mentioned are IMHO not a real hurdle for acceptance of people doing more professional stuff, but the somewhat lackluster approach of Pelle to his own project on the other side certainly is.
While for newbie use or even for fun/open source kind of projects it is not such a big deal, if you depend for professional projects on it, it certainly is. In such a case, you simply can't wait for 6-9 month to get a reply about a possible bug report and a fix for that. That certainly hurts the project more than the lack of some header files for some applications...

One thing that I noticed recently while trawling the web is for example that for the Raspberry Pi. that cheap $45 ARM computer, a lot of "retro tools" are all the sudden being ported, like BASIC interpreters and plain old C compilers, which seems to me to indicate that there is some interest in this and not just for the all the new stuff that is buzzing all over the forums.
To me, it would make sense to pick up the Windows CE stuff that Pelle wants to bury, and make development for the ARM based Raspberry Pi a new option, which could attract a lot of renew interest. But without a real interaction of Pelle, well, one can only dream... 

Just my 2c,

Ralf

[CommonTater]

Well, ... 

I certainly I would not call it a dead fish, it doesn't smell like it at least just yet.

 
 
 

One issue that I see is that it is simply a plain C compiler, something that nowadays is considered an "old" language.
Nothing really wrong with that, it is a tried and proven programming language, which actually is still used a lot in professional development.

This is shaping up to another "End of Pascal" experience for me.  Near the end of that I was watching Pascal die a slow and awkward death at the hands of Delphi and it's OOP model. A once sleek and very friendly programming language was being buried in a sea of blubber as objects replaced functions and inch by inch the language was forcefully transformed into something less than useful.  I moved to C to get into a language that produced small, reliable and hopefully fast code... I was not disappointed.
 
Now this happens again. Suddenly I'm feeling C fall out from under me as well. Support is dwindling, C is used only when C++ is too awkward for a given task and worst of all, the only real C package out there appears on the virge of being abandoned.
 

But it is not an "easy" programming language either, making it hard for beginners to get "the hang of it", specially if they are skipping on learning the (programming language depended) basics of programming in the first place...

As we both agree, this is NOT the way to learn programming... The base concepts, order of execution, loops, functions, etc. that are common to all languages are not something one can simply gloss over.  We may disagree on how to learn this, but that's here nor there when you realize that a lot of programmers don't even bother.
 

But nowadays, a lot of people (specially beginners) are much more drawn to the "new and shiny", like C# or D, which you mentioned. Or things like Python, Ruby, Haskell, Eiffel, Erlang and a lot more fluff, it sometimes seems to be like a race for the "new programming language of the month".

At the risk of quoting Homer Simpson: "OOOOOO Shiiiinnnnyyyy".
 

A lot of those seem to have their own issue, So while D seems to be fairly popular (at least there is a lot of rave about it), those two RTL you mentioned are IMHO a huge drawback, as they are widely incompatible with each other and you have to settle on one or the other, with neither one being a "one size fits all"...

IMO... Bright's mistake with D was to allow the RTL to be developed without primary guidelines. He just left it up to the Open Source community and got exactly what you should expect when you have too many cooks making the broth.  Had he set out some guidlines right up front, it's very likely he'd have a programming language second to none.  As it is now, it's being choked out of existence by competing interests and public confusion.
 

The lack of header files for those things that you mentioned are IMHO not a real hurdle for acceptance of people doing more professional stuff, but the somewhat lackluster approach of Pelle to his own project on the other side certainly is.

Well, I think we have to be fair here... This hasn't always been the case.  Up to about version 6, Pelle was very active on these forums and did contribute very strongly to his own project's success. But in more recent times your observation is correct. It's almost like he's gone on to other things and only visits here when the mood hits. His current lack of interest is plenty obvious and yes it is a problem.
 

While for newbie use or even for fun/open source kind of projects it is not such a big deal, if you depend for professional projects on it, it certainly is. In such a case, you simply can't wait for 6-9 month to get a reply about a possible bug report and a fix for that. That certainly hurts the project more than the lack of some header files for some applications...

Agreed...
 
While it's not obvious here I do have some very large projects out there, written in Pelles C.  In particular, an inventory package specialized for electronic parts, that I ported over from Pascal in 2004 and is still in use in a few companies. There have been times when I made bug reports and got no answers, then ended up with some pretty ugly workarounds...
 
However; we should also note that Microsoft is even less responsive with VC++ and the GNU team is virtually unreachable when it comes to such things.  For reasons I will never fully understand, the most crucial software in the computer industry --languages, compilers, linkers, etc.-- is most often the least supported.
 
I can't help wondering if I've landed on something here...
Or maybe I just don't want to change languages again.
 

[Bitbeisser]

This is shaping up to another "End of Pascal" experience for me.  Near the end of that I was watching Pascal die a slow and awkward death at the hands of Delphi and it's OOP model. A once sleek and very friendly programming language was being buried in a sea of blubber as objects replaced functions and inch by inch the language was forcefully transformed into something less than useful.

Sorry, can't absolutely not agree with your here.
Objects (which had been introduced first with Borland Pascal 7, not with Delphi) is more or less "optional". For anything that isn't Windows/thread related, you just don't "have to" use it.

OOP is IMHO a more general issue all together. As with a lot of things in life, used in moderation, it can be quite beneficial. If you overdo it, you can quickly overdose... 
And you need to know what you are doing in the first place. Otherwise, overly complicated OO structures rather obfuscate your code and make it rather less maintainable, to the contrary what is touted as one of it's benefits...

I moved to C to get into a language that produced small, reliable and hopefully fast code... I was not disappointed.

You could do the very same with Delphi (or FreePascal/Lazarus for that matter). And you can avoid of hassle with all the string (resources) stuff for Windows programming, something for which C IMHO is a bit on the inept side...

I personally have never used C for major "application" development, with the exception for a large CAD system, but that was born and designed in Pascal and kept a certain "Pascalish" appearance even after we switched to using a C compiler instead of the long used and venerable Pascal MT+86.
I always used it for small tools, stuff that worked in the background through scripts or system calls or for administrative purposes. For end user applications, I might have been used to the "comforts" that Pascal and BASIC implementations (yes, BASIC, like in Business BASIC or HP/Rocky Mountain BASIC) provide to concentrate on the application more than on the way to implement them...

Now this happens again. Suddenly I'm feeling C fall out from under me as well. Support is dwindling, C is used only when C++ is too awkward for a given task and worst of all, the only real C package out there appears on the virge of being abandoned.

C just hasn't created a lot of buzz in recent years, simply because a lot of folks seem to fall for those Homer Simpson moments... 

IMO... Bright's mistake with D was to allow the RTL to be developed without primary guidelines. He just left it up to the Open Source community and got exactly what you should expect when you have too many cooks making the broth.  Had he set out some guidlines right up front, it's very likely he'd have a programming language second to none.  As it is now, it's being choked out of existence by competing interests and public confusion.

I think WB had a good idea to tackle what Stroustrup did from a slightly different starting point, fixing some of the early shortcomings that showed up in C++. But I think in any way, with an emergence of a lot of highly hyped languages, it just was an "also ran".
But if you look on what actually used software is written in, none of those "buzz of the day" languages show up...
 

Well, I think we have to be fair here... This hasn't always been the case.  Up to about version 6, Pelle was very active on these forums and did contribute very strongly to his own project's success. But in more recent times your observation is correct. It's almost like he's gone on to other things and only visits here when the mood hits. His current lack of interest is plenty obvious and yes it is a problem.

I found Pelle's C with version 4.5, shortly before 5 was released and I can't say that I have ever seen much of him around here besides some "short bursts" when he felt like releasing a new version and shortly thereafter.
I don't blame him for having higher priorities in his life, but he should consider opening up the development of Pelle's C a bit more, I think there are a few folks around here who could help to make this more appealing through faster updates and enhancements in a team effort...
 

While it's not obvious here I do have some very large projects out there, written in Pelles C.  In particular, an inventory package specialized for electronic parts, that I ported over from Pascal in 2004 and is still in use in a few companies. There have been times when I made bug reports and got no answers, then ended up with some pretty ugly workarounds...

Well, I wouldn't have made that switch if I would have been in your shoes at that time. While maybe not that "shiny", you could have stayed in a more familiar environment and adapted to Delphi, with the opportunity to use FreePascal as an alternative (which is after all around for more than 15 years, I know it back from the days when it was called FPK and produced GO32 applications). IMHO for applications like that, a far more economic approach...

However; we should also note that Microsoft is even less responsive with VC++ and the GNU team is virtually unreachable when it comes to such things.  For reasons I will never fully understand, the most crucial software in the computer industry --languages, compilers, linkers, etc.-- is most often the least supported.

The last M$ compiler that I used in anything serious was BASCOM on MS-DOS and for a while their Fortran 5.1 and early PowerStation stuff... 
I seriously fail to see why they came up with all that .NET fluff and C#/F#/VB.net in the first place (and now apparently slowly go back to C++).

And GCC is (and always has been) a monster that is more of a necessary evil and burden. I get shivers down my spine even thinking about being forced to use it...

I can't help wondering if I've landed on something here...
Or maybe I just don't want to change languages again.

That's up to you, though I would stay and soldier on or "go back to the roots"... 

Ralf

[CommonTater]

This is shaping up to another "End of Pascal" experience for me. 

Objects (which had been introduced first with Borland Pascal 7, not with Delphi) is more or less "optional". For anything that isn't Windows/thread related, you just don't "have to" use it.

Not entirely true... Under Delphi, which was actually a bunch of junk piled on top of TP7, you had no choice but to use some of the OOP stuff since the compiler linked in a number of classes for error handling and such... Even if you went outside the IDE and worked in notepad with the command line compiler, you ended up with OOP code... The killer was when I wrote an MCI command in Delphi to play a midi file from the command line and the program ended up being over a megabyte... The same program was 16k in C.

OOP is IMHO a more general issue all together. As with a lot of things in life, used in moderation, it can be quite beneficial. If you overdo it, you can quickly overdose... 
And you need to know what you are doing in the first place. Otherwise, overly complicated OO structures rather obfuscate your code and make it rather less maintainable, to the contrary what is touted as one of it's benefits...

You'll get no argument from me on that one!

I personally have never used C for major "application" development... I always used it for small tools, stuff that worked in the background through scripts or system calls or for administrative purposes.

Except for the lack of a string type (and even Delphi had to translate it's strings for Win-API) the only real advantage to Pascal is it's garbage collector... the rest is pretty much "C with an accent" as one of my students put it.
 

But if you look on what actually used software is written in, none of those "buzz of the day" languages show up...

Yep... and that's why I've stuck with Pascal then C... 5 years from now, when these Fad Languages start falling away, I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of code I can no longer upgrade.
 
 

I found Pelle's C with version 4.5, shortly before 5 was released and I can't say that I have ever seen much of him around here besides some "short bursts" when he felt like releasing a new version and shortly thereafter.

When I first showed up, around ver 2.90, he was very active in the forums.  We had some very interesting conversations back then.  I even suggested some stuff that ended up being part of the current setup ...  like the WIN32_DEFAULT_LIBS and the Message Table Editor.
 

I don't blame him for having higher priorities in his life, but he should consider opening up the development of Pelle's C a bit more, I think there are a few folks around here who could help to make this more appealing through faster updates and enhancements in a team effort...

Agreed ... if he would take on some help things might be a lot better.  I don't know how much help I could be, but I'd be willing to do my part...
 
 

Well, I wouldn't have made that switch if I would have been in your shoes at that time. While maybe not that "shiny", you could have stayed in a more familiar environment and adapted to Delphi, with the opportunity to use FreePascal as an alternative (which is after all around for more than 15 years, I know it back from the days when it was called FPK and produced GO32 applications). IMHO for applications like that, a far more economic approach...

In the short term yes, a lot less work... but in the long run I'm glad I did the work, since Pascal actually is a dead fish...
 

The last M$ compiler that I used in anything serious was BASCOM on MS-DOS and for a while their Fortran 5.1 and early PowerStation stuff... 

Actually, it's starting to look like I'm going to have to get some kind of setup going with the VC++ compilers from the SDK... they're about the only 32/64 bit compilers that are compatible with the full set of windows headers and libs... (And no, that's not a choice I wanted to make!)
 

I seriously fail to see why they came up with all that .NET fluff and C#/F#/VB.net in the first place (and now apparently slowly go back to C++).

Beats me ... didn't make any sense at the time, makes even less sense now... "Stupid is as stupid does"...
 

And GCC is (and always has been) a monster that is more of a necessary evil and burden. I get shivers down my spine even thinking about being forced to use it...

I know... I set up the MinGW and MinGW64 ports of it on my system, took one look at the tangled up mess and ditched them without even trying them out.

That's up to you, though I would stay and soldier on or "go back to the roots"... 

Well, I can't really go back to Pascal with the huge amounts of C code I have...
 

[shazam]

I wish I could be more active on the forums but I'm still green to C so besides asking questions that is all I can do for now 

I'm not a working programmer .....Learning for myself so not sure how C is still used in the working field BUT I do see more colleges offering C courses

Just signed up myself for an "Intro to C" class at my local community college and last year they did not offer this class (just Intro to java)

 

[CommonTater]

I wish I could be more active on the forums but I'm still green to C so besides asking questions that is all I can do for now 

Your opinions are still valid...

I'm not a working programmer .....Learning for myself so not sure how C is still used in the working field BUT I do see more colleges offering C courses

Just signed up myself for an "Intro to C" class at my local community college and last year they did not offer this class (just Intro to java)

You're probably going to see more of that since people are finally figuring out that Java babysits a programmer too much in the learning phases, producing a bunch of "well trained idiots" who don't actually know anything about memory management, string buffers, memory allocations etc. that are common in both C and C++ (and a whole host of other languages).  They're getting the point that you need to know this stuff even if you seldom use it...

Plus, Java is slowly falling to disfavour as more and more people move to C++ ...
Sadly, it looks like C is taking the same hit.

EDIT: Don't underestimate the power of "self-education" ... There is much to be said for learning something because you *want* to learn it, instead of learning it because "the boss wants me to" or "my parents are paying for the course"... if you get my drift.
 

[shazam]

Your opinions are still valid...

  I will be more active on the forums

You're probably going to see more of that since people are finally figuring out that Java babysits a programmer too much in the learning phases, producing a bunch of "well trained idiots" who don't actually know anything about memory management, string buffers, memory allocations etc. that are common in both C and C++ (and a whole host of other languages).  They're getting the point that you need to know this stuff even if you seldom use it...

Plus, Java is slowly falling to disfavour as more and more people move to C++ ...
Sadly, it looks like C is taking the same hit.

EDIT: Don't underestimate the power of "self-education" ... There is much to be said for learning something because you *want* to learn it, instead of learning it because "the boss wants me to" or "my parents are paying for the course"... if you get my drift.
 

Yes I get your drift 

I feel better of myself for learning (the little so far) of C that I have
 

[CommonTater]

Yes I get your drift 
I feel better of myself for learning (the little so far) of C that I have

As we've discussed before, the thing you need to do is knuckle down with the books and "just do it"... I'm sure your course will help, but the real learning usually starts when you decide on your first independent project.  I've been pounding Source for quite a while.  It's never been my major income but it hasn't hurt me either... 90% of what this old dabbler knows comes from making the mistakes and taking on the challenges... The books were a great start... but that's all they were... a start.
 
As a friend of mine who teaches music is fond of saying: "School teaches you how to learn. The real education starts when you play your first solo."
 
As far as the forums are concerned... yes, please do join the conversations, ask questions, answer them if you can... the more the merrier.

[Bitbeisser]

Not entirely true...

Looks like you might have used a different Delphi then... 

Under Delphi, which was actually a bunch of junk piled on top of TP7, you had no choice but to use some of the OOP stuff since the compiler linked in a number of classes for error handling and such... Even if you went outside the IDE and worked in notepad with the command line compiler, you ended up with OOP code...

Delphi (and certainly the 32bit versions since Delphi 3.0) was pretty much a complete new compiler from scratch with very little in common with any previous DOS based compiler.

The killer was when I wrote an MCI command in Delphi to play a midi file from the command line and the program ended up being over a megabyte... The same program was 16k in C.

I am pretty sure that you are comparing apples and oranges here. I have written in the past a small Windows based POS system with some midi files playing for audio feedback, and that whole program fit on a 1.44MB floppy disk, including about a dozen external .MDI files!

Except for the lack of a string type (and even Delphi had to translate it's strings for Win-API) the only real advantage to Pascal is it's garbage collector... the rest is pretty much "C with an accent" as one of my students put it.

Working with a pChar in Delphi is magnitudes simpler than anything you can do in C...

And not to forget that IMHO Pascal has a far clearer syntax, type checking, etc, which makes programming a lot easier than doing the same things in C, even with a lot of programming discipline. And I use both, C and Pascal, for +30 years now...

Agreed ... if he would take on some help things might be a lot better.  I don't know how much help I could be, but I'd be willing to do my part...

That's the point of working in a team, every one just has to do a little bit and one can concentrate of the part they are adapt to the most...

In the short term yes, a lot less work... but in the long run I'm glad I did the work, since Pascal actually is a dead fish...

Sorry, not by  along shot... 
It's more like the old pike hiding in the weeds to bit all those shiny fat carps in the butt! <LOL>

Actually, it's starting to look like I'm going to have to get some kind of setup going with the VC++ compilers from the SDK... they're about the only 32/64 bit compilers that are compatible with the full set of windows headers and libs... (And no, that's not a choice I wanted to make!)

Well, then you can certainly kiss your 16KB command line midi tool good by... <BFEG>

Ralf

[CommonTater]

Not entirely true...

Looks like you might have used a different Delphi then... 

Actually no... But I did devise a patch for the RTL that would let me compile programs without classes...

The killer was when I wrote an MCI command in Delphi to play a midi file from the command line and the program ended up being over a megabyte... The same program was 16k in C.

I am pretty sure that you are comparing apples and oranges here. [/quote]

Two programs with exactly the same MCI string command in them and nothing else...  Source code in the area of 10 lines... Delphi produced a 1 meg executable, Pelles C did it in just under 16k.

And not to forget that IMHO Pascal has a far clearer syntax, type checking, etc, which makes programming a lot easier than doing the same things in C, even with a lot of programming discipline.

Easier yes... but seldom more efficient.

The original Turbo Pascal would commonly produce executables the same size as C, sometimes even smaller... Delphi, well, that was like walking off a cliff.

Agreed ... if he would take on some help things might be a lot better.  I don't know how much help I could be, but I'd be willing to do my part...

That's the point of working in a team, every one just has to do a little bit and one can concentrate of the part they are adapt to the most...

Yep.... but I've always been the lone wolf type... I definately work best on my own.

Actually, it's starting to look like I'm going to have to get some kind of setup going with the VC++ compilers from the SDK... they're about the only 32/64 bit compilers that are compatible with the full set of windows headers and libs... (And no, that's not a choice I wanted to make!)

Well, then you can certainly kiss your 16KB command line midi tool good by... <BFEG>

Sigh... so it would seem...

Remember when programming used to be fun?

[Stefan Pendl]

I think to remember that Pelle is looking after his father due to he being ill.


We have currently written our own GUI framework for UltraDefrag, but it is really hard to do things in pure ANSI C.

Now we look at utilizing wxWidgets, but that is C++, so we face another problem

Libraries and frameworks for ANSI C would help keeping it lively.

[jcfuller]

Tater,
  I have been using MinGWTDM64 with my fork of Bcx (bc9) with excellent results. Just a change from -m32 to -m64
to compile the same source. I am using both gcc and g++ depending on what I am developing.
  bc9 is compiled with PellesC7R but the later Bcx releases are compiled with Pelles6. There is a bug report here
somewhere of issues that were never addressed.

James

[CommonTater]

I think to remember that Pelle is looking after his father due to he being ill.

Of course, we give Pelle all the slack he needs for that... The real concern is why he wouldn't take on a couple of helpers to keep things going while he's otherwise occupied.

We have currently written our own GUI framework for UltraDefrag, but it is really hard to do things in pure ANSI C.
Now we look at utilizing wxWidgets, but that is C++, so we face another problem

I've never had any problems working GUI setups in pure C and WinAPI...
The UI for ultra defrag isn't that complex so forgive me but I don't see the problem.

Libraries and frameworks for ANSI C would help keeping it lively.

Absolutely.... Over the years I've put up everything from wrapper libraries for file associations to custom controls... What surprises me is that there aren't more of these floating around.