Is it an old idea to compile and run c programs on turbo c?

If yes which one is the better software to compile and run c and c++programs ?

Is it an old idea to compile and run c programs on turbo c?

Yes, by about 15 years. Visual C++ is freely available, Code::Blocks comes with a recent gcc build, and I hear Pelles C is good too. There are more, but those are the three most common recommendations.

are they portable?
i mean the file executed with them can be used even in other systems with different configurations?

Portable doesn't have anything to do with the .EXE file that's created. It means the code you write can be built using any C++ compiler.

Then its preferrable to use other softwares other than turbo c?

I don't see how we're back to this, but yes, it's preferable to forget Turbo C exists.

Portable doesn't have anything to do with the .EXE file that's created. It means the code you write can be built using any C++ compiler.

yes then what's the difference of using turbo c and the other softwares for writing the program?
Is it just the appearance which may vary??

what's the difference of using turbo c and the other softwares for writing the program?

Compilers are designed to target an OS. If the OS dies or is too outdated to be useful then the compiler that targets it shares the same fate. Turbo C was designed for MS-DOS. If you're not using MS-DOS, you shouldn't use Turbo C.

I don't see how we're back to this, but yes, it's preferable to forget Turbo C exists.

ok
and even is it that turbo c supports less graphics other than the other softwares?
i am not sure about this statement but ....
Is this right?

Compilers are designed to target an OS. If the OS dies or is too outdated to be useful then the compiler that targets it shares the same fate. Turbo C was designed for MS-DOS. If you're not using MS-DOS, you shouldn't use Turbo C.

Yes i think its a valid reason

and even is it that turbo c supports less graphics other than the other softwares?

Sorry, I'm done with this thread. There must be a language barrier, because you don't seem to understand a thing I'm saying.

Edited 4 Years Ago by deceptikon: n/a

Sorry, I'm done with this thread. There must be a language barrier, because you don't seem to understand a thing I'm saying.

ok
anyhow thanks for saying all these..

This maybe useful to help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSDOS#Legacy_compatibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16-bit_application
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit_application
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_application

As you can see, Windows follows two family trees. The upper left tree is based on MSDOS, which is a 16-bit operating system. It required special software to allow programs to run in 32 Protected Mode. Windows 95, 98 and ME were built on top of MSDOS. They use 32-bit mode on top of 16-bit "Real Mode." Programs written for MSDOS will run on Windows 95, 98 and ME with few problems.

Now we come to present day. Windows XP is built on the Windows NT kernel. NT was built 32-bit from the ground up. It has nothing to do with MSDOS. It has to use a special emulation mode to allow MSDOS programs to run on it. And often, those programs don't work the way they should. That's why a group of people got together and wrote the program "DOSBox" and other MSDOS emulators.
With 64-bit OSes, support for 16-bit software is often dropped entirely. You will need to run those programs inside emulators.

Turbo C writes software for MSDOS. Those programs may or not run correctly in Windows. They might.

Visual C++ (newer versions) will generate software for Windows.
Other recent compilers will too (generally speaking). MinGW (based on GCC) is a popular free compiler that comes bundled with Code::Blocks.
It can also be used with NetBeans or Eclipse.
(All of these can be found with a Google search.)

If you want to find a job writing C++, you will want to move to a modern compiler. You will not want to stay with Turbo C/C++.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.