Graphics error in Turbo c++ v3.0

[Ninja]

Hey guys, im trying to compile my code using turbo C++ v3.0 and it gives me the following errors:
Linker Error : Undefined symbol _closegraph in module CIRCLE.c
Linker Error : Undefines symbol _circle in module CIRCLE.c
Linker Error : Undefined symbol _initgraph in module CIRCLE.C

code:

#include<graphics.h> #include<conio.h> void main() {     int gd=DETECT, gm;     initgraph(&gd, &gm, "\\TC\\BGI");     circle(200,100,150);     getch();     closegraph(); }

[wtd]

Why in the world would you use such antiquated software?

[wtd]

And of course, by that I mean that it's going to be really difficult to find anybody who can help you with such an old compiler's quirks.

Newer compilers are readily available for free.

[Ninja]

wtd wrote:

Why in the world would you use such antiquated software?

hehe, i knew someone would say that. The reason is that my dad had a whole bunch of C++ books but they are all non ANSI c and are based around the turbo C++ ide..i just wanted to try stuff out.Since i dont have any C++ books i decided lets download turbo C++ and try out code from this book

[md]

it sounds like the graphics library isn't being linked (hence the linker errors ). I'm not sure how you'd fix it... maybe there is somewhere you can add additional libraries to be linked?

[Justin_]

I'm with wtd. My retort: "who needs books?" That is what google is for. Try "C++ tutorials" and take your pick. It makes no sense to learn turbo c++. You gotta think, the reason it's antiquated is because it sucks.

[wtd]

It's antiquated because it's old.

Don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means there are better options.

[Justin_]

Really? Math is pretty old too. Did we antiquate it yet? If something is good it doesn't get antiquated. Obviously it was easier to scrape turbo c++ and form new standards altogether therefore turbo c++ had to have sucked.

[wtd]

Math is antiquated.

Find me a better, more modern alternative.

[md]

Just because something is antiquated doesn't mean it's not worth learning. Turbo C++ may not be the best, or most modern; and it's true that GCC is readily available.

But if your just starting off learning something, and you have books for a specific tool, there is nothing wrong with learning the basics on the (perhaps antiquated and non-standards conformant) tool you have and then moving on to a more modern standards compliant tool later (say GCC). It won't be as easy to switch as starting with GCC, but if the Turbo C++ books help someone learn C++ quickly then where is the problem?

@Justin_

Justin_ wrote:

Really? Math is pretty old too. Did we antiquate it yet? If something is good it doesn't get antiquated. Obviously it was easier to scrape turbo c++ and form new standards altogether therefore turbo c++ had to have sucked.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of antiquated; you don't antiquate things, antiquity is a matter of age or utility. If something is old it's antiquated; or if it is no longer useful it may be considered antiquated. Turbo C++ may not be the best tool, but it is still a C++ compiler and some people may find it useful.

No one scrapped Turbo C++ to form new standards; C++ has existed as a standard since the first C++ compiler (which incidentally defined the C++ language... anything anyone else did after that was non-standard). Certainly Turbo C++ isn't among the most standards compilant of C++ compilers; but it's downfall had nothing to do with creating new standards and everything to do with the fact that better tools were available.

And Math IS antiquated. However, unless you can explain to me how to figure out the area under a curve, or the probability function of a Poison Distribution using something other then math I think you're forced to agree that math is still very useful.

Now, please either contribute something useful and stop sprouting nonsense (and sprouting it in a rather disrespectful way at that) or bugger off.