I would like to use C/C++ for coding my apps, but I need my apps running on all versions of Windows from XP to Win8, independently by any platforms, run time libraries and so on.
Briefly: What kind/type of C/C++ I suppose to use, be able to run my apps on every type of Windows without any additional installation, just default one. e.g Windows XP SP1
C++ can run on just about any OS, as long as you avoid (or, via conditional compilation, provide alternatives for) anything specific to one OS or version. Win32 code is almost all the same between versions; the main difference is added functionality in newer versions. Between Windows and, say Linux, though? Not so much. You kinda need to pick a platform, unless you want to either stick to text mode (which is pretty close between OSes, thanks to standards) or learn some whole other platform-neutral API like OpenGL, wxWidgets, GTK, etc.
As for which compiler to use, if you're sticking with Windows, I'd recommend Visual Studio. Microsoft has a free (Express) edition that will let you compile Win32 code or .net. (You'll need the paid version, or some playing around with the Platform SDK, to play with 64-bit though.) And the IDE isn't too bad either. If you just want a compiler, the Platform SDK has the same compilers VS has, and includes 64-bit support (and even a bunch of code samples and tools) as well.
As for being independent of any runtime libs: Every C++ compiler that's worth using has a runtime library. If you link statically against it, though, the parts you need will be embedded in your EXE. Alternatively, you have permission to distribute the runtime libs with your app (though you may need to install it via a package they provide, that you bundle together with your app...i forget how all that works).
All popular C++ compilers support XP up. You can statically link the runtime, or, for mingw, you can link against the runtime supplied with Windows.
Related
I am trying to compile qt, and am faced with two choices whether use MinGw or Visual Studio compiler? What is the difference between them, and are there any advantages/disadvantages of using one or the other?
They are both fine tools. The important thing to know is that they don't necessarily play well together. That is, as you link libraries together, they must all use the same tool chain. For this reason, in my opinion, it is better to use the Visual Studio compiler (MSVC), as it is the "first class citizen" on Windows; the others are treated somewhat as second class.
What I mean is that you can pretty much count on third party libraries being available in binary form using MSVC, or at least build instructions being available using MSVC. We had lots of problems with third-party libraries not being able to build in MinGW or having nonexistent build instructions and having to do a lot of manual Makefile editing, etc. You are much more likely to have things "just work" if using MSVC.
That is just our experience (we started with MinGW); your mileage may vary.
MinGW uses GCC, and GCC has one significant advantage to MSVC - it is portable. MSVC is limited to Microsoft platforms, GCC supports pretty much everything, including 8bit embedded CPUs. Meaning that you can use the same directives and compile extensions across different platforms.
Also, MinGW is compact, quick to install, and a version is even bundled with Qt. Unlike MSVC, which is not even available standalone, you have to install visual studio, which itself installs a bunch of garbage you don't need but can't opt out of.
UPDATE
It is now possible to get the MS compiler without VS, a.k.a MS Build Tools. Also, If you want to build chromium (a.k.a the QtWebEngine) for windows you have to use MSVC, that's a limitation imposed by google, as they only support building with the platform-native compiler.
Last but not least, you can get MSYS2, which has a repository with MinGW and a ton of ready to use static and dynamic libraries build for it, so you can avoid the arduous and often failure prone build process.
UPDATE
Just for the sake of reference, for VS build tools 2019, the C++ compiler alone takes up about 4.5 gigabytes of space, or about 8 if you just click "C++ build tools" and leave it at the default. For comparison, GCC 9.x is about 150 mb. In fact, the MSVC compiler alone is larger than the entire extensive collection of packages that I adopted for use throughout the years, plus their dependencies, for a total of over 200 packages. Additionally, I'd say MSYS had packages for about 98% of the libraries and tools I've found myself in need of, and those remaining 2% include libraries it had but were not configured in a way, suitable for my use case. And it goes without saying, the packet manager makes it trivial to keep versions up to date.
Considering to develop a desktop application with Qt for Windows. It will be a free download application, but for a commecial SERVICE. (need an account with our commercial service to work).
I think we could use the Qt for Windows from Nokia (LGLP version) because its free app. But the lastest one version of Qt needs a C++ complier from Microsoft.
Which one?
Do I need to pay for an C++ compiler from Microsoft, or do they have a free version to use with Qt?
Reading info docs, googling and we still cann't understand what tools do I need.
If you want to use the Visual Studio compilers, you can download the free Windows SDK. The following link takes you to the SDK for Visual Studio 2008:
Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
This includes all the C++ compilers and tools you need. (There is a more recent version available, but Visual Studio 2010 is not yet a "level 1 supported" platform for Qt.) We are using this on standalone build machines and it works fine.
Just a personal opinion, but we have found that using anything other than MSVC on Windows (for example, MinGW) causes a lot of problems. It is not that the other toolchains are bad, it is just that they are all treated as second-class citizens. We had lots of problems with third-party libraries not being able to build in MinGW or having nonexistent build instructions and having to do a lot of manual Makefile editing, etc. You are much more likely to have things "just work" if using MSVC.
For the most part (static linking), you cannot mix and match. You need to pick one toolchain and stick with it. If I were starting from scratch, I'd definitely go with MSVC.
Just our experience (we started with MinGW); your mileage may vary.
No, you do not need to pay for anything.
The Microsoft toolchain is available for free as part of the Microsoft Windows Software Development Kit.
Additionally, the following article may also be of interest to you:
Developing Windows Applications in C++: The tools you need
The alternative supported by Qt is MinGW. The runtime libraries are free from copyright, so you can do whatever you want with them.
It is basically the Windows counterpart of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) under Unix.
The international manufacturing company that I am working for is considering moving from Windows to Linux. The only reason for this that I am aware of is that the Windows automatic updates occassionaly cause some of their applications to fail. Apparently, they do not know how to turn this off. What other reasons they may have, I do not know (cost, the mobile phone effect?). My question is does Linux or some popular variant of Linux have a development environment equivalent in power and functionality to Microsoft .Net other than what Java offers, the Linux version of .Net (Mono) offers, or running Windows as a virtual machine on Linux?
It's kind of unclear what you are looking for... a Mono IDE that runs on Linux?
Have you looked at http://monodevelop.com/ ? It's not Visual Studio, but it's really not bad as IDE's go, and I think it's cross-compatible with VS project files. Should be packages available for any major Linux distro -- I know all the Debian based ones have it.
Mono's API is pretty compatible with .NET, though there are differences in some of the supporting libraries. There are apache extensions to do ASP.NET, but they are fiddly to get set up correctly.
It's a usable platform though, and it's possible to write Mono code that's 100% .NET compatible if you stay away from certain assemblies that haven't been ported yet.
I know I am 9 months late. You may have found your solution. You may look at IronPython.
What are the different platforms/languages in which an app can be compiled and run on Windows without any prerequisites? I know of .NET but it requires the specific version of .NET to be present in the Windows installation.
C and C++, but Visual Studio defaults to dynamically linked library. Change the default to static and you will be fine.
That being said, ther are no compilers that come with windows. You must install a compiler to build the a program that will run everywhere after that. There are free version of the compiler in the Platform SDK and in mingw (Cygwin requires a dll).
If you are using Visual C++ as language and development tool, you may switch to Statically bound DLLs, which would produce larger binaries, but would run without any runtime-prerequisites. Visual C++ Runtimes are easily installable, can be distributed, or users may be asked to install them directly. If users are using Windows Update, they would anyhow get the latest VC runtimes.
Two things come to my mind whenever I revisit the subject of using Visual Studio's compiler and linker to build Windows drivers:
It is not officially supported. Indeed, the consensus all over the Internet is that the right way to build Windows drivers is to use the compiler, linker and BUILD tool included in the Windows Driver Kit. However, Visual Studio 2008 includes the /DRIVER linker option, which is described as follows: Use the /DRIVER linker option to build a Windows NT kernel mode driver. What does it do? Why was it included in Visual Studio if using it for building drivers is not recommended?
It works. I'm almost afraid to say this out loud lest I incur the wrath of the righteous kernel developers, but the truth of the matter is that drivers built with Visual Studio do work. We've been building them this way for years at my workplace, the produced binaries have been deployed on hundreds of machines, and there haven't been any problems. However, I am aware that the absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, and that the lack of any problems so far doesn't necessary mean that building drivers with VS is safe.
What really bothers me here is the lack of information. There are a few posts over the Internet from people who use VS to build their drivers, which invariably draw the same response - it is not supported, do not do it, integrate WDK with VS by means of a makefile project if you really want to use VS's IDE. However, I haven't found a single reply which points out a concrete reason why you shouldn't build drivers with VS.
So, does anyone know what would happen if you use VS to build your drivers? What could go wrong? Under what circumstances? I know that you have to set all compiler and linker options yourself, and it's allright, but what happens if I set them wrong? Will the driver fail to compile, or will it fail to link, or If it builds fine will it crash outright or only when the stars align right? Why would it do that, what causes it? Is there any reason to stop building our drivers with VS which has worked like a charm for years, apart from the fact that it is not officially supported? If it is not officially supported, why put the /DRIVER switch in VS?
The reason this is common-sense is because the resulting flaws can be subtle. Most of this has been cargo cult, though ... ever since there was an actual problem. And if I remember correctly that would have been before 2005 (i.e. the first DDKs at all containing a compiler). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Generally, I don't see a lot that speaks against using the VS compiler though. For the the linker you also have to set the proper subsystem value (i.e. none) and so on ... it's just tedious.
However, keep in mind that the WDK compilers and tools are usually ahead of those in the latest VS at any given time. Consider this: what the WDK contains is a close as you can get to what is used to build Windows itself. Hence the preference for the tools from the WDK.
Technically it can be done. But if you post to a newsgroup and mention the fact, don't be surprised if you first get to hear a lesson on that topic rather than your actual question ;)
If it is not officially supported, why put the /DRIVER switch in VS?
It's not a matter of putting the switch in to VS, it is a matter of taking it out.
The C++ compiler/linker that ship with WDK and VS are built from the same source base (perhaps from different branches and at different points in time, but the same source base), by the same team inside Microsoft. Could they configure their builds so that the /DRIVER switch doesn't appear in the linker delivered with VS? Sure. Is it worth the cost of maintaining a separate build configuration and checking that the right build variants are delivered with the WDK and VS, respectively? Probably not.
As to why it isn't officially supported in the first place... The expertise of validating a toolset for driver development lies within the Windows team, not the VS team. The last thing the Windows team wants to do is to be on the hook to qualify a release of VS for driver development (which Windows would ultimately have to help support, as well), when that release is on a schedule that doesn't line up with Windows.
Combine that with the fact that driver development is targeted at a relatively small audience, and building drivers through IDE opens up additional features and test scenarios, and it is very unsurprising to me that it is not officially supported.