Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:16:23PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
>> Thanks Chad,
>> I am really glad that somebody's heard my scream.
>> I never used gcc before. But I think I will give it a go.
>> I've been using Borland c++ for a while and quite happy with it.
>> And now there is a free version can search using "Borland's Free C++ 
>> Compiler ".
>>
>> I guess the problem is in the make file regarding the include directory.
>> Since I have no experience with Makefiles I don't know how to fix it.
>>
>> Thanks again Chad appreciated.
>>
>> With kindest regards
> 
> You're quite welcome.
> 
> Sometimes, something that compiles with one compiler doesn't with
> another.  Generally, GCC and the MS compiler are among the most important
> compilers to people who write software like the Ruby, Perl, and Python
> interpreters.  I tend to guess the Intel compiler might be third place.
> 
> That's one reason I brought up the GCC compiler (the other being you
> indicated you had no interest in using the MS compiler).  I just thought
> you might want to know some more about my reasoning.
> 
On most "non-Gnu" systems, the native compiler (MS on Windows, Sun's
compilers on Solaris, etc.) are in first place. On Gnu systems, GCC is
in first place. In high-performance computing, I know people who won't
use GCC on an Intel platform, even Linux, but use the Intel compiler.

I actually think I had a copy of the Intel compiler at one point --
there's a version you can download for evaluation purposes. But I gave
away my last Intel box, a P3, and am now a pure AMD lab. :)