- Automating the build, obsessively and completely. You MUST have a batch file, shell script etc. to call for each build variant. This ensures that you know what you are doing, that no mistakes (e.g. calling make rather than make install) are possible, that you can run unit tests reliably, that you can call your build commands from anywhere (particularly from a button in your text editor and in combination with source control operations).
- Using fancy text editors and taking time to configure them properly. Syntax highlighting, line numbers, folding and Ctags integration reduce the gap with a proper IDE to autocompletion, which isn't strictly necessary; debugger integration, which might likely be managed from the debugger side (like in DDD); and various auditing functions which add only convenience to the messages you can get from your compiler and lint tools. For the record: do you consider Emacs an IDE, or are you willing to use it?
Can I avoid the hassle of these IDE's?
As a compromise between using an IDE, which you want to avoid, and "stone age" command line development, I'd suggest
Whats so hard about IDE's ?
Bloodshed C++ has never given me any issues .
you didn't get the memo?
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/articles/36896/
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1343061351' post='4962292']
Whats so hard about IDE's ?
Bloodshed C++ has never given me any issues .
you didn't get the memo?
http://www.cplusplus...articles/36896/
[/quote]
No I didn't get that memo - I've been blissfully unaware that Bloodshed was slightly outdated ... - Guess I'll have to tack C++ onto Eclipse now... * sigh *
[quote name='kunos' timestamp='1343061956' post='4962295']
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1343061351' post='4962292']
Whats so hard about IDE's ?
Bloodshed C++ has never given me any issues .
you didn't get the memo?
http://www.cplusplus...articles/36896/
[/quote]
No I didn't get that memo - I've been blissfully unaware that Bloodshed was slightly outdated ... - Guess I'll have to tack C++ onto Eclipse now... * sigh *
[/quote]
Ugh, no.
Go for either Visual Studio, Code Blocks or Qt Creator, assuming you are on Windows. There is also KDevelop, XCode and even NetBeans.
All of which are better than Eclipse + CDT.
QTCreator is also available on linux and mac.. I can't imagine anybody using eclipse after trying QTCreator for 3 minutes, heck I'd rather take MonoDevelop than Eclipse 
[quote name='kunos' timestamp='1343061956' post='4962295']
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1343061351' post='4962292']
Whats so hard about IDE's ?
Bloodshed C++ has never given me any issues .
you didn't get the memo?
http://www.cplusplus...articles/36896/
[/quote]
No I didn't get that memo - I've been blissfully unaware that Bloodshed was slightly outdated ... - Guess I'll have to tack C++ onto Eclipse now... * sigh *
[/quote]
Or, if you want, you can try Orwell Dev-C++ -- "A maintained version of Dev-C++ which features an updated MinGW compiler and updated code."
http://sourceforge.n...s/orwelldevcpp/
http://orwelldevcpp.blogspot.com/
// Both the x32 and the x64 versions are available. "It also contains, among others, D3D9/10/11, GDI, Win32 and OpenGL headers and libraries in that flavor."
See also (you can sort by "Latest stable release"):
http://en.wikipedia....nts#C.2FC.2B.2B
How long until the author of Orwell Dev-C++ abandons it? Are those DirectX headers even legal to use?
People never used DevC++ back in the day because it was any good. It was actually horrible software with tons of bugs that would corrupt all your work, and sometimes completely hose your project. It was also prone to crashing after any random keypress. We used it because it was all we had at the time! There was DevC++, Visual Studio (which had no free option), and a bunch of other OSS hobbyist IDEs that were useless and buggy. DevC++ was just the lesser evil!
But eventually better options came about, and DevC++ succumbed to the same fate as most OSS projects; the author abandoned it as soon as it stopped being fun, and became work.
Stick with something established.
People never used DevC++ back in the day because it was any good. It was actually horrible software with tons of bugs that would corrupt all your work, and sometimes completely hose your project. It was also prone to crashing after any random keypress. We used it because it was all we had at the time! There was DevC++, Visual Studio (which had no free option), and a bunch of other OSS hobbyist IDEs that were useless and buggy. DevC++ was just the lesser evil!
But eventually better options came about, and DevC++ succumbed to the same fate as most OSS projects; the author abandoned it as soon as it stopped being fun, and became work.
Stick with something established.
Or, if you want, you can try Orwell Dev-C++ -- "A maintained version of Dev-C++ which features an updated MinGW compiler and updated code."
I posted some thoughts on Orwell and wxDev-C++, and it does appear they're currently an acceptable option, but if you're going to choose one of the two (unless a 64bit compiler is a deal-breaker) I think there are strong arguments in favour of wxDev-C++ rather than Orwell. Personally, I'd still rather go with an alternative anyway, but to each their own.
I believe I understand you in this regard, and I encourage you to go ahead without the IDE.
I use Linux only and, except for the first six months when I was learning to code, I have never again used an IDE for programming in my life.
I work with embedded software and I can tell you can build and debug any arbitrarily complex piece of software without one of these clumbered IDEs.
In my opinion, one can't actually be serious about programming in C++ if he/she doesn't know enough about how a C++ program is built from source and what are the tools and steps involved in the lower levels. Apart from software bugs on the IDEs, I can see how "obscure" linking problems would be. Googling and hoping for some blog documentation to exist on the specific problem would then become the help resources.
All you need is a powerful text editor (maybe vim), knowledge about the build flow and compiler options (how to tell include and linking directories, linking options, how to build with debug symbols or optimizations) and learn to write Makefiles to automate and customize that.
I use Linux only and, except for the first six months when I was learning to code, I have never again used an IDE for programming in my life.
I work with embedded software and I can tell you can build and debug any arbitrarily complex piece of software without one of these clumbered IDEs.
In my opinion, one can't actually be serious about programming in C++ if he/she doesn't know enough about how a C++ program is built from source and what are the tools and steps involved in the lower levels. Apart from software bugs on the IDEs, I can see how "obscure" linking problems would be. Googling and hoping for some blog documentation to exist on the specific problem would then become the help resources.
All you need is a powerful text editor (maybe vim), knowledge about the build flow and compiler options (how to tell include and linking directories, linking options, how to build with debug symbols or optimizations) and learn to write Makefiles to automate and customize that.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
