Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newcomer to TCC (and C) with a couple ofquestions..

[lostgallifreyan]

"fsw.fb" <address@hidden> wrote:
(04/04/2009 03:06)

>
>Hi,
>if you want to stay with Win32 then you could look for theForger's Win32 
>API tutorial here:
>http://www.winprog.org/tutorial/
>

That one's really good. I like the humour too. And I just read the appendix on 
API vs MFC. Very useful, this is exactly what I need. I think the writer 
probably understands how I felt when faced with MFC and MSVC++ without knowing 
either. As he says, it's monumental. It's like looking up at a giant cliff full 
of craggy bits looking fragile and ready to fall, knowing that we're expected 
to climb. Despite TODO being sprinkled liberally just about everywhere it was 
almost impossible to see where to put stuff, from that perspective. I chose to 
look at TCC because it was small, and I could make it work more easily, and the 
files I started with had so little in them that I could more easily see the 
results of my actions.

Contrary to TCC being a bad place for a newcomer to start (my inference from an 
earlier response), I think it's a good one, and I suspect that writer would 
agree. Looks like his examples will all be in C too, which helps. While ASM 
would be a major chore for me, I think that putting less rather than more 
between me and the OS core is the way to go, at least till I understand what's 
behind any layers I choose to put there. I want less distracting layers of 
abstraction, but M$ seem to be adding more layers every year. That goes against 
my instinct and intuition.

Your example compiled and ran ok, useful to have another to work with. I tried 
a couple of the ZIP'd examples too, and those worked too. (Though the dialog 
one I tried was a bitch to start because I had to translate a .rc with GCC's 
'Windres.exe' as per TCC's 'Readme.txt' and found I also needed two other exe's 
and found that apparently at least one of those doesn't like spaces in paths in 
its commandlines.... But I got there>:)

Re the antivirus thing, I guess an heuristic method fired on a false alarm. 
I've seen that mentioned a lot. (I gave up on AV years back, instead using a 
firewall/antitrojan, an HTML filter, a watch on various startup methods, and 
Ghost images, and a registry lock I have to manually override at boot if I want 
to let it change between sessions. Sounds like a chore but I find it cleaner, 
safer, easier than any of the standard ways I used to know.)