Sign in to follow this  

is Code::Blocks an acceptable C compiler for professional games?

This topic is 3602 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Just curious if it is or not, because it's freeware. I know my programming teacher recommends it over Visual Studio, but I can't help but be skeptical. Would something free really be capable of that much, or should I go out and buy the overpriced Visual C++ instead? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Visual Studio Express Edition is free as well. It's a slightly cut-down version of the professional versions, but most of the missing features are ones you probably wouldn't use anyway.

I'd recommend Visual Studio over Code::Blocks, it's simply the best IDE out there for Windows, bar none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK GCC has a more complete implementation of C99, so that makes it a better C compiler in my book. If what you're after is a C++ compiler though, I'd say they're both more or less on equal grounds.

I've never used Code::Blocks, and I don't care for Visual Studio (I work mostly on GNU/Linux), so I can't recommend one over the other. They're both free (one as in free speech, both as in free beer), so try them both and see what you like better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Forestknight25
or should I go out and buy the overpriced Visual C++ instead? Just curious.
Or you could download the free Visual Studio 2008 Express Edition. It or Code::Blocks would be acceptable for you to learn with, there's absolutely no reason you need to pay for a compiler and IDE while you're still learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use both Visual Studio 2005 (commercial version) and Code::Blocks. While I prefer VS, I must say that Code::Blocks is an excellent IDE - definitely a strong contender. It fills most needs a professional or hobby programmer needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Code::Blocks just an IDE? If you use Code::Blocks or something else, the generated code is going to be the same with the same compiler. That said, Code::Blocks works very well in combination with the GCC compiler and it's a great way to compile on multiple platforms as well. You can work in Code::Blocks on Mac, Linux, or Windows and setup cross-compilers so you won't even have to boot into the other operating systems to generate the appropriate code. I've used Code::Blocks for a couple of years now for both small-scale application development and more ambitious game projects and I'm very satisfied with it. My advise would be to check it out and see if you like it. But remember, with Visual Studio you're mostly tied to the Windows environment.

Jeroen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by godmodder
Isn't Code::Blocks just an IDE?


Yes, Code::Blocks is "just" an IDE (not just another IDE like DevCpp - IMHO, CB is a great IDE), and I am quit amazed by that fact that none has mentioned it before your post :)
Code::Blocks works well with both GCC, MSVC and various other compilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Visual Studio is pretty good for large projects (even Express Edition, but are you allowed to use it for commercial usage???).

Code::Blocks and wxDevC++ are better for "small" projects, where small means you don't need additional functionality - only compiling, linking, debugging, maybe profiling.

I think that it doesn't really matter... I'm still using Dev-C++ 4.9.9.0 ;) It's only the programmer that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Code::Blocks, and it does a fantastic job of making DevC++ seem completely inadequate, but I prefer any recent version of Visual Studio over both. It's an excellent IDE that's industry-standard, with plenty of support from both Microsoft as well as development communities. Even if I were one of those Linux junkies who likes to preach the evils of an MS development environment, I wouldn't underestimate the effects of its widespread use. Using the same tools that most other people use can be very beneficial for getting help, compiling libraries and sample code, or even getting a job. But of course it's also important not to under-estimate the benefits of a cross-platform tool such as Code::Blocks, at least if you think cross-platform development is in your future.

Also for what it's worth, I've never met a professor or teacher that actually liked Visual Studio. [smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

(even Express Edition, but are you allowed to use it for commercial usage???)

Yes.

Quote:

I think that it doesn't really matter... I'm still using Dev-C++ 4.9.9.0 ;) It's only the programmer that matters.

Only to an extent. Dev-C++ is five years old; it ships with a outdated version of GCC, a pathetic debugger front-end, and an IDE that desperately needs features to be relevant in the modern world. Tools become outdated. Visual C++ 6 is outdated, and Dev-C++ is outdated. Neither should be used anymore.

Quote:

Also for what it's worth, I've never met a professor or teacher that actually liked Visual Studio.

By way of contrast, I've met very few professors who knew anything about practical software development. Academics almost universally favor *nix-style tools, because of the culture of academia (among various impractical and idiotic conventions, there's the valid convention that academia is research-focused and thus more concerned with implementing functionality versus making that functional practical from a user perspective -- so they don't screw around with interfaces or neccessarily even great software design, they simply implement their research as a proof-of-concept; this endears them to the simplistic realm of command-line tools).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by jpetrie
Tools become outdated. Visual C++ 6 is outdated, and Dev-C++ is outdated. Neither should be used anymore.

That's correct, I just wanted to say that I'm still happy with Dev-C++ because it is just simple. You can also have wxDevC++ (seems to be a dead project?!) which uses a more recent compiler, but tools like Code::Blocks or MSVC are also easy to learn. Actually, what I don't like about Code::Blocks is, it is loaded with a bunch of features and plugins that I don't really need, so the IDE overview is worse compared to Dev-C++; and the project doesn't seem to need "official" releases because there are nightly builds.

Since MSVC and CB are free, you can test them as long as you want. If you're not happy with it, change to another IDE, creating/converting a project is not that hard (but nasty).

Quote:
By way of contrast, I've met very few professors who knew anything about practical software development.

Good one xD

Quote:
Academics almost universally favor *nix-style tools

Unix style means people like to use the console editors whereas they could use one of the great Windows IDE's available. Don't take that too seriously ;) I hate Linux...



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andidog: Im not professional or anything but personally I prefer Linux as a programming environment because for instance you have all the development libraries at hand and the man pages installed. Plus you can directly log errors etc into the console ( well i know its not that hard to do under windows either ). Also i use any editor plus makefile but i only worked on relatively small projects so far and its an academic requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by AndiDog
Actually, what I don't like about Code::Blocks is, it is loaded with a bunch of features and plugins that I don't really need, so the IDE overview is worse compared to Dev-C++; and the project doesn't seem to need "official" releases because there are nightly builds.


Not aiming for you to change your mind about CB, but I think you should know this:

Most of the features (and almost all of the plugins) can be turned off / disabled within CB.
You can recompile it very easily to fit your needs, should you like to do so.
The nightly builds are actually helpful, since they give you the latest updates - for instance, after the holidays CB now supports the lastest, stable version of GCC.
I have only experienced problems with 2 or 3 nightly builds on my machines (and you can change back to a previous nightly in an instant), and I have used CB nightlies for over 2 years now with nightlies comming out almost every day or at least quite often, which IMHO is a great service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Forestknight25
Just curious if it is or not, because it's freeware. I know my programming teacher recommends it over Visual Studio, but I can't help but be skeptical. Would something free really be capable of that much, or should I go out and buy the overpriced Visual C++ instead? Just curious.


Speaking as professional software enginner (apparently) yes Code::Blocks + GCC is an acceptable IDE to use. I use Visual Studio 2005 on my windows machines and C::B on my Linux machines. There's also Visual Studio Express editions which I use frequently on my home PCs simply because they're free and very good.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by nife87
Most of the features (and almost all of the plugins) can be turned off / disabled within CB.
You can recompile it very easily to fit your needs, should you like to do so.
[...]


Alright, that is quite o.k.
I just don't want to deal with the IDE while I could work on a project, that's why use Dev-C++ most of the time. It's easy, supports GCC and you only have to modify yours settings once (like syntax colors, f.ex.) and will be happy with it.

I'm not saying Code::Blocks is bad, really it might be the program I'd choose if I started programming in 2008... But not having an official release could be confusing if someone wants to take a first look at C::B.

@Saya: To me, programming under Linux is just too complicated for beginners. Libraries are easy to reach, true - but working on the command line or with immature IDE's is nothing for me. However, if you only do small projects it will be okay, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just to nitpick but code::blocks is just a IDS u can easily use any/most compilers with it eg gcc/intel/visualc
im not sure if the reverse is true (does visualc let u also compile with gcc?)

this does have a large benefit of more thorough testing eg one compiler will pick up errors/warnings the other misses

im 99% sure, of the top100 selling games of alltime gcc (freeware) is used more often than visualc. freeware != crapware (though often it does)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'm gonna stick with Code::Blocks

But about the compiler spiel, I downloaded C::B with something called the "MINGW Compiler." I have no idea what the heck that is, but it sounds imposing and hard to use. I also tried downloading GCC, but the mirrors wouldn't work, and I dunno how to get it to work with Code::Blocks properly. Is there a way I could download GCC via Code::Blocks, since the two programs are designed to work with each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not used CB, so I can't comment on it, but I will say that Visual Studio is a very nice IDE, relatively easy to use and includes pretty much all the functionality most would want. My personal favorite is wxdev-c++. It is built off the core of dev-c++ (which was, for its time, a great IDE... but that time has long passed) and fixes a lot of the problems with it while adding more features and better library support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Saya
Im not professional or anything but personally I prefer Linux as a programming environment because for instance you have all the development libraries at hand and the man pages installed.


That isn't the case if you're using Ubuntu, unless you enjoy spending hours downloading them from the main Ubuntu repository. And I fear other distros are moving the same way, too.

Of course, since the Windows SDK is a gigantanormous download itself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Forestknight25
I think I'm gonna stick with Code::Blocks

But about the compiler spiel, I downloaded C::B with something called the "MINGW Compiler." I have no idea what the heck that is, but it sounds imposing and hard to use. I also tried downloading GCC, but the mirrors wouldn't work, and I dunno how to get it to work with Code::Blocks properly. Is there a way I could download GCC via Code::Blocks, since the two programs are designed to work with each other?


MinGW basically ports/packages GCC to Windows. You'll want it.


Also, Code::Blocks can use the Windows SDK or Visual C++ compilers if you so wish. It should automatically detect them on your system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To throw my opinions in, I believe C::B to be a great IDE! I tried VC++, but it was so bloated (what was it, 2 Gigs?!?) with fluff I did not need.

Setup on C::B is superior, I'd say. Install it, start it, choose a compiler, your done!

FlyingIsFun1217

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by coldacid

That isn't the case if you're using Ubuntu, unless you enjoy spending hours downloading them from the main Ubuntu repository. And I fear other distros are moving the same way, too.

Of course, since the Windows SDK is a gigantanormous download itself...


Actually you just have to install the build-essential package on ubuntu and a few developpement libraries like SDL and Opengl. But installing them is just a matter of installing the package ( no need to spend time puting the right file at the right location etc ) and adding '-lLIBNAME' at the end of your compile instruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3602 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this