Runtime libraries installation
I installed the new Beta version 2 of MS Visual Studios 2005. I then installed the runtime libraries for 2005. However, when I include "#include <iostrem.h>" it doesn't seem to compile it saying it cannot find it?
I looked at the runtime libraries and iostream.h is a file called iostream. Not iostream.h? This is funny to me, since in v6.0, it is iostream.h according to memory.
I then installed the 2003 libraries in the hope that this might resolve the problem. However it did not.
Unlike the 2003 or v6.0 environments, the I am unclear on how to set the path for librarires, include files, etc, on the beta version; and am unclear on how to install STL, runtime libraries, include fields etc. If anyone can give me some help e.g. a step by step process of how to install the runtime libraries that would be of much help.
A .C file will compiler with that, but C++ should use <iosteam> without the h
6.0 was in a transition period where both work.
The stl should be included (part of the compiler, you do nothing I mean)
#include<iostream> //no .h, some of them have a c in front like cmath
using namespace std; //namespace of the language so you can have your own cout
in a differernt namespace without compiler errors.
Last edited by jonnin; 07-18-2005 at 08:51 AM.
Forget about all .h standard headers -- they were removed from C++ only 11 years ago:) In standard C++, all standard headers are in the form of <header> and the C libraries are in the form <cheader> for example:
Originally Posted by Rahul Dixit
<cmath> //formerly: <math.h>
The difference between the deprecated <header.h> file and their modern replacement <header> isn't just cosmetic. The new headers declare their components in namespace std and in most cases, they are more generic and STL-compatible. Please don't reinstall old libraries -- there's no point in starting a new project on the wrong foot. Simply get used to the standard C++ header naming conventions.
On that note, Ive seen some people making their headers extensionless, usually these sort of programmers add a folder to the compiler so the thing looks like <myheader> ..
Is there a take on this? I prefer quotes, and the .h, to tell the reader that its not part of the language. <> with a .h means library to me, quotes with a .h means source code that I can get at, and <> and no h is part of the language. But thats MY take on readibility -- is there a convention emerging in this area?
Yes there is. First of all, all non-standard headers shouldn't use < brackets but double quotes:
If the file system supports extensionless files,
Should work but too many IDEs I know will break if they can't see a proper extension of a header file. Officially however, it's allowed as long as you don't use <>.
So your not a fan of adding an 'include' folder to the compiler and using <>
Good, I don't care for that either. I can deal with .h or no .h but find not having it to be less than helpful. How do you grep all the headers if nothing has an extension?
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL