Console Applications

ambershark

@mrjj Lol. I'm glad it actually worked since I just typed that out without testing anything. And I don't use windows much so I could easily have messed it up. :)

tomy

Sorry there isn't such a file an any folder there:
alt text

jsulm

@tomy Maybe it is just called differently? So, is there ANY *.exe file?
Also, if you build in CMD you actually will see which files are generated. Did you check?

tomy

Look, I did these:
Creating a C++ file named "main" with a simple code in it, in the "test" folder.
Then, found and ran all three commands (qmake -project, qmake, mingw32-make).
And the result as shown above (with no ".exe" file in the "test" folder.
I CMD:
alt text

jsulm

@tomy As you cen see the build failed, that's why there is no exe.

jsulm

@tomy Looks like g++ is not found.
Try to add the bin directory of your MinGW installation to PATH and try again.

mrjj

Hi
An alternative to fiddling with path is to run the
c:\Qt\5.8\mingw53_32\bin\qtenv2.bat
in the cmd before trying to compile.

tomy

@mrjj

Hi
An alternative to fiddling with path is to run the
c:\Qt\5.8\mingw53_32\bin\qtenv2.bat
in the cmd before trying to compile.

Hi,
"The system cannot find the path specified."
Anyway, it's not that important and we can leave it out because it's not my purpose to be familiar with running files from CMd, now. Maybe when needed.
(I liked to test that simple example this way but, the testing may not be so easy) Thanks.

jsulm

@tomy Depending on the MinGW version you install the path can be a bit different. Just search for qtenv2.bat file in your Qt installation directory.

tomy

Yes, I did it and I think the system is set now and ready for the next tests. You can look at this:
alt text
"text.exe" exists but nothing is shown after test.exe in CMD.

Update:
After re-opening the CMD and testing the .exe:
alt text

Flotisable

@tomy
what code you write in test?

Eeli K

@tomy Locate the libgcc_... file on your system and copy it to the same directory with the exe. Or set the PATH variable. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4702732/the-program-cant-start-because-libgcc-s-dw2-1-dll-is-missing.

mrjj

@tomy said in Console Applications:

"The system cannot find the path specified."

Well you need to use the correct path for your installation.
It sets the correct path for tools but that you can also do in other ways.

mrjj

@tomy
You need to provide the DLLs it wants from the CORRECT compiler folder under c:\Qt
so you end up with (maybe more DLLs)
alt text

Please read
http://www.tripleboot.org/?p=138

tomy

@mrjj

You need to provide the DLLs it wants from the CORRECT compiler folder under c:\Qt
so you end up with (maybe more DLLs)

I added them from the folder: C:\Qt\Qt5.8.0\5.8\mingw53_32
No reaction.

mrjj

@tomy
Did you read the link ?
Anyway, it might need extra dlls :)
You can try the tool
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/windows-deployment.html

or use
http://www.dependencywalker.com/
To check the dlls.

Anyway, to make it run, that release folder must be an deployment folder so keep reading docs and it will work :)

tomy

At the beginning there were only four simple CLI commands to get the result on our contraction, but now I see after doing more than 4x commands I haven't the file run, and still need to go on!
Why should we bother themselves this way! In the Qt Creator or Visual Studio (for console apps) we can get the result in 10x faster than this CLI method.

CLI may be faster in some cases, but not in this one, at least!
Thank you all. Let's don't continue the topic. Thanks again.

mrjj

@tomy
well being experienced means you know for each job what is the right tool.
Besides using GUI or CLI is 2 sides of same coin. If you look in
Creator/VS you can see the command line it uses to get the job done.

So if i need CLI action i will visually create and edit files and then simply steal the CLI line to build it.

That way i can use CLI when it suits :)

Its not fair to dismiss CLI as GUI would be nothing without it.

GUI was invented to make life easier for those of us that feels CLI is just too much typing but i work with ppl that can create something 10X faster using CLI. Building libs and dependencies. They like CLI for the direct
power user control it gives. If its not for your liking ( or mine ;) then its not the tools fault in my opinion.

The reason it just dont work for you is that the environment is not setup and u are used to the IDE setting it up before running exe. The qtenv2.bat was part of that automation etc. So power user will bother to use CLI as its
efficient and there is noi layer in between (the IDE) so they prefer CLI and some kinky editor :)

ambershark

@tomy said in Console Applications:

At the beginning there were only four simple CLI commands to get the result on our contraction, but now I see after doing more than 4x commands I haven't the file run, and still need to go on!
Why should we bother themselves this way! In the Qt Creator or Visual Studio (for console apps) we can get the result in 10x faster than this CLI method.

CLI may be faster in some cases, but not in this one, at least!
Thank you all. Let's don't continue the topic. Thanks again.

Oh yea CLI is faster in some cases not all. The reason I recommended you trying the CLI for a console app is to learn this stuff. But I bet if we raced, me on a CLI, you with the IDE, I'd win every time. ;) I'm not saying don't use an IDE, they are great. But you should at least understand what the IDE is hiding from you (or making easier). Like @mrjj said GUIs are just making life easier for people who want to type less. And they usually do a great job. I use an IDE too, but not always. For a lot of things I use the CLI since it's so much faster. Git for instance. Almost always command line unless there is a complex command, then I'll use a gui.

All the problems you're running into here are things you will need to know how to deal with. If you were to distribute any software you would need to deal with all these dlls to get it to run on someone else's machine. This is normal development stuff that the IDE is hiding from you. It's very important to learn.

This is also really only an issue with windows. Windows has (at least in my opinion) really annoying ways of finding and using libraries for an application. On a linux or mac system with a properly set up Qt environment, the binary would just run without needing to be pointed at the right supporting libraries, or having to make a distribution by copying the libs to your app directory.

Well, not entirely true, posix OSes have these issues as well but it's really only when you need to make a release distribution and not during development. Even on the command line.

tomy

Yeah, of course you would win :-) ;)

GUIs are just making life easier for people who want to type less.

All people (except professionals) like this way; and since I want to be a professional on this case too, I will certainly catch this topic. I think when I will start using Linux, it will be a good point to learn it too, or even by using the Linux terminal it will be easily achievable.

If you were to distribute any software you would need to deal with all these dlls to get it to run on someone else's machine.

I've done this before. :-)
When I using my C++ experience became able to write a good accurate Qt GUI calculator while I'd read only the first chapter of the Qt book (a few pages), I went to make it installable on others' machines and went to the end of the process and by Qt Framework Installer the goal was available. ;)

So, I'd gone the way, "but", I wouldn't like to re-go through such a rather complex way for such a simple code (main.cpp). :)

Windows has (at least in my opinion) really annoying ways of finding and using libraries for an application.

:-) :D
Thanks.