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.
is Code::Blocks an acceptable C compiler for professional games?
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]
Also for what it's worth, I've never met a professor or teacher that actually liked Visual Studio. [smile]
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 Dev-C++ is five years old; it ships with a outdated version of GCC, a pathetic debugger front-end, and an IDE that desperately needs features to be relevant in the modern world. Tools become outdated. Visual C++ 6 is outdated, and Dev-C++ is outdated.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).
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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)
Author
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?
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?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement