Thread: No!

**Mario F.** · 05-26-2006

I've only yesterday asked on the c++ forum about an IDE of choice. My main beef with VC++ 2005 was that it seemed to use proprietary libraries. I liked the interface, I liked the debugger. However I was told I could use VC++ 2005 to write perfectly standardized c++ code.

However while reading through the porting issues thread on this forum regarding C++ 2005, it is obvious I'm not working on a standards compliant environment. Really! Why did I expect anything less from MS?

So, down with a great interface and back to Dev-C++ with it's joke debugger but that at least gives me the standards and the ability to write true c++.

Maybe one day I will have $700 to buy borland's IDE

**Dante Shamest** · 05-26-2006

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Maybe one day I will have $700 to buy borland's IDE

Is that a good idea?

**Prelude** · 05-26-2006

>I was told I could use VC++ 2005 to write perfectly standardized c++ code.
You were told wrong. You can get close, because Visual C++ 2005 comes pretty close to standard conformance, but it's not complete. However, the parts that don't completely conform are unlikely to be used by any but the most advanced of C++ programmers. The story is the same with Borland's latest. If you want perfect conformance, I believe Comeau comes the closest.

>Really! Why did I expect anything less from MS?
That's odd. I have no trouble writing standard C++ using Microsoft tools and porting standard code to Microsoft tools. Maybe you just don't know what you're doing.

How about instead of ..........ing about how M$ is giving you grief, tell us your problem. That way we can tell you why it's your fault and how to fix it.

**Sang-drax** · 05-26-2006

Originally Posted by Mario F.

However while reading through the porting issues thread on this forum regarding C++ 2005, it is obvious I'm not working on a standards compliant environment.

The issues discussed here has nothing to do with the C++ standard.

**Mario F.** · 05-26-2006

It seems I've misread or misinterpreted something when on this thread I read through the link posted that microsoft deprecated most of the C library. For instance, functions like strlen() have been deprecated by Microsoft owned library in VC++ 2005 and added their own versions of these functions. strnlen() on this case.

So, granted. I've read something wrong or didn't quite understand what I read. But exactly what didn't I understand?

**Prelude** · 05-26-2006

>But exactly what didn't I understand?
Put simply, Microsoft doesn't know what deprecated means and it's an empty threat anyway. The C standard is the only authority when it comes to deprecating or removing functionality. You can expect the heat death of the universe before the standard stops supporting the majority of its base library.

**Sang-drax** · 05-26-2006

I have never recieved that warning message in Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition. Also, if you get that warning, it is easy to turn off.

This is not a problem with the compiler, it is just a (stupid) default configuration that is very easy to change.

**Mario F.** · 05-26-2006

Ok. Thanks for the heads up you both.

**computation** · 05-26-2006

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Maybe one day I will have $700 to buy borland's IDE

3 words:
g n u

DJGPP
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/zip-picker.html (READ THE INSTALLATION TEXT)

There's all kinds of ide's that you can "put on" it...(if i remember correctly)

..and yes, you can create windows programs with it

**Dante Shamest** · 05-26-2006

Dev-C++
Code::Blocks
Pelles C

**Ken Fitlike** · 05-26-2006

>>joke debugger<<

Gdb, is a decent enough debugger; its integration with dev-cpp is not perhaps all that it could be but, since you seem to have a love-hate relationship with microsoft, perhaps Mingw-devstudio, which is a virtual clone of msvc6 and has good integration with gdb, may be more to your liking?

**VirtualAce** · 05-26-2006

VS 2005 is a good IDE but right now it's quite shaky. It seems to have been released with some fairly obvious bugs in it.

The whole deprecated C standard library, IMO, is MS's attempt to prove that CLI runs better on Windows than C/C++. This can be the only explanation for the major push and rush to get CLI standardized. I don't mind if they standardize it, just don't call it C++/CLI. That's way too far and looks like MS is attempting to 'take over' C++. Don't be surprised in the future if you see MS saying that CLI runs better on Windows than just C/C++.

This, they prob think, will generate sales for their .NET framework and for C# which means more money in their pockets. There is a lot of heated debate about this and about C# on the web right now.

I, for one, am on the side of C/C++ staying as is. If MS wants CLI, fine, but don't attempt to mix it with or add it to C/C++.

Notice how Microsoft phrases CLI? Extensions to the C++ language

I don't like that at all.

**okinrus** · 05-27-2006

It seems I've misread or misinterpreted something when on this thread I read through the link posted that microsoft deprecated most of the C library. For instance, functions like strlen() have been deprecated by Microsoft owned library in VC++ 2005 and added their own versions of these functions. strnlen() on this case.

Microsoft's own versions of these functions, CString, and std::string, are less likely to cause security problems. (I haven't had problems with strlen, but strcat and the other functions require some diligence to use properly.) If the warnings are problem to you, you should find a compiler switch that turns off the warnings.

Thread: No!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

No!