hi,
    i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
it?

abi wrote:
> hi,
>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
> it?

You can compile with mingw-gcc for win32, like this
>> gcc -Wall -c abi_c.c [Enter]
This will compile your c program, and generate one corresponding
object file if your program has no error.

OR

Create a project with VS2005, and build it.

On Oct 22, 6:13 pm, abi <abi3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
> it?

1. Install a compiler
2. Read documentation for compiler referenced in step 1
3. Follow the instructions.

If you install gcc, then you would save your c program to a file such
as test.c and then using gcc you would do this:

dcorbit@DCORBIT64 /c/tmp
$ gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic test.c

dcorbit@DCORBIT64 /c/tmp
$ ./a
Hello world!

dcorbit@DCORBIT64 /c/tmp
$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>

int             main(void)
{
    puts("Hello world!");
    return 0;
}

dcorbit@DCORBIT64 /c/tmp
$

abi said:

> hi,
>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
> it?

"This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything else 
in C is relatively simple by comparison.

1) Save the file somewhere on your filesystem, and preferably somewhere 
that you can find easily in a console window! (See below.) Use a .c 
extension. Given the nature of the text editor you have chosen, you may 
need to use quotes to stop the editor from slapping a .txt extension onto 
the name. For example, if your program is:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
  puts("Hello, world!");
  return 0;
}

then you might want to specify the filename as "hello.c" (including the 
quotes). The editor will - I hope - take the quotes as a hint not to do 
something stupid. As far as your filesystem is concerned, the filename 
will be taken as hello.c - i.e. without the quotes.

2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find a 
list of free C compilers here:

  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers

3) Consult the compiler's documentation to discover how to tell that 
compiler to compile the C file you saved earlier. Try to insist that it 
places the resulting program (if any - i.e. if you didn't make any serious 
mistakes in your program) in roughly the same place that you stored the 
source file.

4) Open a console window (if you haven't already) and navigate to the right 
place on your filesystem.

5) Run the program by typing its name.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

abi wrote:

> hi,
>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
> it?
> 

The first chapter of the most tutorial is how to compile and run.
So what's you need mostly is a formal tutorial of C.

It's also a good idea to google some for it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+compile+and+run+C&btnG=Google+Search

HTH
Road
-- 
C FAQ: http://c-faq.com/

On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> 2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find a
> list of free C compilers here:
>
>  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers

Don't forget Watcom C:

http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download

user923005 said:

> On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find a
>> list of free C compilers here:
>>
>>  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers
> 
> Don't forget Watcom C:
> 
> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download

Thank you. Duly added.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com> writes:

> On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find a
>> list of free C compilers here:
>>
>>  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers
>
> Don't forget Watcom C:
>
> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download

It's good to finally see the stalwarts being a little more open minded
and answering what would previously have been called "Off Topic".

abi wrote:

> hi,
>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to compile
> it?

Convert it to what?

First save your program to a file. Then invoke your system's C compiler
and pass this file as it's source file. Your compiler and it's support
programs must be in your executable search path.

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> abi said:
> 
>> hi,
>>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to
>>     compile
>> it?
> 
> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.

<snip>

I personally found this to be the smallest hurdle in learning C.

santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> abi said:
>> 
>>> hi,
>>>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to
>>>     compile
>>> it?
>> 
>> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
>> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
>
> <snip>
>
> I personally found this to be the smallest hurdle in learning C.

Yes, but like that rubbish about debugging being twice as hard as
writing it right in the first place, if it comes from the mouth of a
"great" it must be true according to some.

Compiling a simple program is, of course, easy to anyone capable of
reading. Understanding C and designing programs to utilise its core
strengths is not.

santosh said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
>> abi said:
>> 
>>> hi,
>>>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to
>>>     compile
>>> it?
>> 
>> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
>> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I personally found this to be the smallest hurdle in learning C.

It has rightly been said that the distance between 0 and 1 is greater than 
the distance between 1 and 1000. (Your mileage may vary. Mathematicians 
need not apply. May contain nuts.)

When I first learned C, I did so by taking a 13-week course. We were given 
quite a few days of classroom stuff before we were let loose on a 
computer. Our first task was "hello, world". We didn't have to install the 
compiler - that had already been done for us, thank heaven.

One of the people in the class (a very promising student, it seemed to the 
rest of us) got quite a few (I think it was 13) compilation errors. He got 
up and walked out of the lab, and we never saw him again.

We all know that he's probably made just one mistake, or possibly two - 
maybe a missing semicolon, maybe a 0 instead of a ), or whatever. Had he 
fought his way over that hurdle, I'm sure he would have made a perfectly 
good C programmer. But it was too big a *perceived* hurdle for him.

I stand by my original statement. Compared to the challenge of getting 
"hello world" up and running, *especially* if nobody has been kind enough 
to install a compiler for you, the rest of C is relatively simple.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> santosh said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >> abi said:
> >>
> >>> hi,
> >>>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to
> >>>     compile
> >>> it?
> >>
> >> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
> >> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I personally found this to be the smallest hurdle in learning C.

<snip>

> I stand by my original statement. Compared to the challenge of getting
> "hello world" up and running, *especially* if nobody has been kind enough
> to install a compiler for you, the rest of C is relatively simple.

In practically every C course I can think of, a ready to use compiler
and environment were provided. If someone is going to learn C at home,
then he ought to familiarize himself with the basic usage of
computers, (manipulating files, installing programs etc.), before
attempting to learn C.

In summary what you say would be true only in two cases, (I can think
of):

1. Attempting to learn C before learning the basics of using
computers.
2. Attempting to write your first program before getting the basics of
C syntax down pat.

santosh wrote:
> 
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
> > >> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
> > >> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
[...]
> > I stand by my original statement. Compared to the challenge of getting
> > "hello world" up and running, *especially* if nobody has been kind enough
> > to install a compiler for you, the rest of C is relatively simple.
> 
> In practically every C course I can think of, a ready to use compiler
> and environment were provided. If someone is going to learn C at home,
> then he ought to familiarize himself with the basic usage of
> computers, (manipulating files, installing programs etc.), before
> attempting to learn C.
> 
> In summary what you say would be true only in two cases, (I can think
> of):
> 
> 1. Attempting to learn C before learning the basics of using
> computers.

Considering how many people try to use computers before learning the
basics of using computers, I think the field is pretty wide open for
this one.

> 2. Attempting to write your first program before getting the basics of
> C syntax down pat.

As I recall, I created/compiled/ran "Hello world" before I knew much
about C beyond the first few pages of K&R.

Yes, I was quite familiar with programming in general, having already
been self-taught in numerous languages.  Yes, I knew how to use the
computer, and was able to install the C compiler, and use a text
editor.

Even so, there was a certain little thrill the first time the compile
worked and the "Hello world" message appeared on my screen when I ran
the program.

Nowadays, when people are spoon-fed pre-installed IDEs which can make
a complete "project" for you at the click of a button or two, I can't
see someone getting that same thrill.

I still agree with Mr. Heathfield, however.

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com | #include              |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     |    <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsASpamTrap@gmail.com>

Kenneth Brody wrote:

> santosh wrote:
>> 
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> [...]
>> > >> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said.
>> > >> Everything else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
> [...]
>> > I stand by my original statement. Compared to the challenge of
>> > getting "hello world" up and running, *especially* if nobody has
>> > been kind enough to install a compiler for you, the rest of C is
>> > relatively simple.

>> In summary what you say would be true only in two cases, (I can think
>> of):
>> 
>> 1. Attempting to learn C before learning the basics of using
>> computers.
> 
> Considering how many people try to use computers before learning the
> basics of using computers, I think the field is pretty wide open for
> this one.
> 
>> 2. Attempting to write your first program before getting the basics
>> of C syntax down pat.
> 
> As I recall, I created/compiled/ran "Hello world" before I knew much
> about C beyond the first few pages of K&R.
> 
> Yes, I was quite familiar with programming in general, having already
> been self-taught in numerous languages.  Yes, I knew how to use the
> computer, and was able to install the C compiler, and use a text
> editor.

In my estimation the difficulty of entering, saving, compiling and
running a "hello world" program has nothing to do with C and all to do
with the details of operating the system.

In which case, if for someone, this was their greatest challenge in
learning C, I can only conclude that they attempted to learn C before
becoming adequately familiar with their system.

I personally started programming about a year after I started on
computers, so this wasn't a problem to me. Also modern computing
environments are significantly more intuitive and easier to operate
than in the days of K&R.

Still this type of difficulty typically arises when someone starts on
programming without being familiar with more basic operations like
editing files, using the commandline and so on.

<snip>

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> santosh said:
> 
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> 
>>> abi said:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>>     i have a c program in notepad. How to convert it or how to
>>>>     compile
>>>> it?
>>> 
>>> "This is the big hurdle", as Brian Kernighan rightly said. Everything
>>> else in C is relatively simple by comparison.
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> I personally found this to be the smallest hurdle in learning C.
> 
> It has rightly been said that the distance between 0 and 1 is greater than 
> the distance between 1 and 1000. (Your mileage may vary. Mathematicians 
> need not apply. May contain nuts.)
> 
> When I first learned C, I did so by taking a 13-week course. We were given 
> quite a few days of classroom stuff before we were let loose on a 
> computer. Our first task was "hello, world". We didn't have to install the 
> compiler - that had already been done for us, thank heaven.
> 
> One of the people in the class (a very promising student, it seemed to the 
> rest of us) got quite a few (I think it was 13) compilation errors. He got 
> up and walked out of the lab, and we never saw him again.
> 
> We all know that he's probably made just one mistake, or possibly two - 
> maybe a missing semicolon, maybe a 0 instead of a ), or whatever. Had he 
> fought his way over that hurdle, I'm sure he would have made a perfectly 
> good C programmer. But it was too big a *perceived* hurdle for him.
> 
> I stand by my original statement. Compared to the challenge of getting 
> "hello world" up and running, *especially* if nobody has been kind enough 
> to install a compiler for you, the rest of C is relatively simple.
> 

I never have found string handling to be simple in any sense in C. 
Perhaps it's just a personal flaw or blind-spot, but having to 
explicitly do the memory management makes it inherently not simple for me.

  - Larry

Larry__Weiss wrote:

> I never have found string handling to be simple in any sense in C. 
> Perhaps it's just a personal flaw or blind-spot, but having to 
> explicitly do the memory management makes it inherently not simple for me.

<OT>
You haven't programmed on Symbian, have you? Their string handling makes 
C strings look not only simple, but also beautiful.
</OT>

Peter Pichler wrote:
> Larry__Weiss wrote:
> 
>> I never have found string handling to be simple in any sense in C. 
>> Perhaps it's just a personal flaw or blind-spot, but having to 
>> explicitly do the memory management makes it inherently not simple for 
>> me.
> 
> <OT>
> You haven't programmed on Symbian, have you? Their string handling makes 
> C strings look not only simple, but also beautiful.
> </OT>

<OT>
No, I have not.

Symbian must be a truly esoteric language in that it has yet to be 
registered in either of these collections:

   http://www.roesler-ac.de/wolfram/hello.htm
   http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/

</OT>

  - Larry

Larry__Weiss <lfw@airmail.net> wrote:

> Peter Pichler wrote:
> > Larry__Weiss wrote:
> > 
> >> I never have found string handling to be simple in any sense in C. 
> >> Perhaps it's just a personal flaw or blind-spot, but having to 
> >> explicitly do the memory management makes it inherently not simple for 
> >> me.
> > 
> > <OT>
> > You haven't programmed on Symbian, have you? Their string handling makes 
> > C strings look not only simple, but also beautiful.
> > </OT>
> 
> <OT>
> No, I have not.
> 
> Symbian must be a truly esoteric language

Not _in_ Symbian, _on_ Symbian. An operating system for mobile devices.

Richard

In article <47218d25.668098053@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>Larry__Weiss <lfw@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Pichler wrote:
>> > Larry__Weiss wrote:
>> > 
>> >> I never have found string handling to be simple in any sense in C. 
>> >> Perhaps it's just a personal flaw or blind-spot, but having to 
>> >> explicitly do the memory management makes it inherently not simple for 
>> >> me.
>> > 
>> > <OT>
>> > You haven't programmed on Symbian, have you? Their string handling makes 
>> > C strings look not only simple, but also beautiful.
>> > </OT>
>> 
>> <OT>
>> No, I have not.
>> 
>> Symbian must be a truly esoteric language
>
>Not _in_ Symbian, _on_ Symbian. An operating system for mobile devices.
>
>Richard

Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia.  It seems strange to talk about an
_operating system_ having a strange (or whatever other descriptive you
choose) string handling "paradigm" (or system, or whatever), when
usually that sort of thing is an attribute of the _programming language_.

In article <8700v4-6s5.ln1@news.individual.net>, Richard 
<rgrdev@gmail.com> writes
>user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com> writes:
>
>> On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find a
>>> list of free C compilers here:
>>>
>>>  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers
>>
>> Don't forget Watcom C:
>>
>> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download
>
>It's good to finally see the stalwarts being a little more open minded
>and answering what would previously have been called "Off Topic".

Yes, It makes the place a LOT more relaxed and friendly.

We loose all the noise of OT discussions and the net overall effect is 
fewer OT messages.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris Hills said:

> In article <8700v4-6s5.ln1@news.individual.net>, Richard
> <rgrdev@gmail.com> writes
>>user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> 2) If you don't have a C compiler installed, install one. You can find
>>>> a list of free C compilers here:
>>>>
>>>>  http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers
>>>
>>> Don't forget Watcom C:
>>>
>>> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download
>>
>>It's good to finally see the stalwarts being a little more open minded
>>and answering what would previously have been called "Off Topic".
> 
> Yes, It makes the place a LOT more relaxed and friendly.

You're assuming the troll is correct, which in fact is not the case.


> We loose all the noise of OT discussions and the net overall effect is
> fewer OT messages.

This was not the experience of comp.lang.c++.

Chris, surely it must worry you that the only people who share your opinion 
on this matter are the trolls?

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

In article <ffs38p$s92$2@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:

>Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia.  It seems strange to talk about an
>_operating system_ having a strange (or whatever other descriptive you
>choose) string handling "paradigm" (or system, or whatever), when
>usually that sort of thing is an attribute of the _programming language_.

Presumably the string handling system is a library provided by the
operating system.  The C library was in much the same position until
it was ported from Unix to other systems.

-- Richard



-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
> 
> >Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia.  It seems strange to talk about an
> >_operating system_ having a strange (or whatever other descriptive you
> >choose) string handling "paradigm" (or system, or whatever), when
> >usually that sort of thing is an attribute of the _programming language_.
> 
> Presumably the string handling system is a library provided by the
> operating system.  The C library was in much the same position until
> it was ported from Unix to other systems.

And presumably, a typical C implementation on Symbian (if there are any;
I believe, but do not know for certain, that there are) would be a
freestanding one, due to the rather specialised nature of the devices it
runs on.

Richard

Richard Tobin wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
> 
>>Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia.  It seems strange to talk about an
>>_operating system_ having a strange (or whatever other descriptive you
>>choose) string handling "paradigm" (or system, or whatever), when
>>usually that sort of thing is an attribute of the _programming language_.
> 
> Presumably the string handling system is a library provided by the
> operating system.

Quite right. The programming language you are stuck with is almost, but 
not entirely, unlike C(++, <cough><innocent look>). The language itself 
looks familiar, but the libraries are completely off. We ended up 
rolling our own malloc, strncmp and about two dozen other functions when 
we were porting an engine (the rest was written using the OS paradigm).

Peter Pichler wrote:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I looked it up in Wikipedia.  It seems strange to talk about an
>>> _operating system_ having a strange (or whatever other descriptive you
>>> choose) string handling "paradigm" (or system, or whatever), when
>>> usually that sort of thing is an attribute of the _programming 
>>> language_.
>>
>> Presumably the string handling system is a library provided by the
>> operating system.
> 
> Quite right. The programming language you are stuck with is almost, but 
> not entirely, unlike C(++, <cough><innocent look>). The language itself 
> looks familiar, but the libraries are completely off. We ended up 
> rolling our own malloc, strncmp and about two dozen other functions when 
> we were porting an engine (the rest was written using the OS paradigm).
 >

What language is that?

  - Larry

Larry__Weiss wrote:
> Peter Pichler wrote [about Symbian OS]:
 >
>> The programming language you are stuck with is almost, 
>> but not entirely, unlike C(++, <cough><innocent look>).
> 
> What language is that?

"almost, but not entirely, unlike C++" :-)

Sorry about the apparent OT, but you *can* actually program
in something that is almost, but not entirely, unlike C too.
As Richard Boss correctly pointed out, it is a free-standing
environment, so their C++ (and C) implementation differs from
standard. Sometimes quite a lot.

Sorry about digressing so much into OT. I brought it up only
to illustrate that there are worse things than C strings :-)

Peter Pichler wrote:

> As Richard Boss correctly pointed out,

OMG, have I really misspelt Richard's name?
My sincerest apology! My only excuse it tiredness.

[Crawls to bed with a tail between his legs.]

Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk> wrote:

> Peter Pichler wrote:
> 
> > As Richard Boss correctly pointed out,
> 
> OMG, have I really misspelt Richard's name?

You are not the first and will not be the last.

I claim no overlordship.

Richard (prefers to be the evil force behind the boss)