PDA

View Full Version : I want to buy a new compiler



Raison
08-30-2004, 10:21 AM
Hi everyone,
School has started and my computer went down at the wrong time. I have lost lotsa files, particularly some of the win32 programs i learn to write during the holidays. Now, I've managed to keep up with the momentum of school work and I hope to code actively again.

Since i reinstall many applications on my pc, I decided to upgrade to a new c/c++ compiler. I work with win32,c/c++ and opengl and I was previously using VC++ 6.0.

But now, I am wondering should I invest on VC.NET 2003.

I am aware there is VC 2005 beta. What limitation does it have as a beta version? Should I just download and use it for time being till the commercial version is out? Any idea when is it going to be commercially released? Or should I just get VC.NET 2003 instead?

I really welcome any advice given. Thanks alot!

RoD
08-30-2004, 10:24 AM
There are many free compilers that can run with the best of the pay-for-me programs. I would also never tell someone to pirate software, but i am not going to tell you to buy it, either.

Raison
08-30-2004, 10:36 AM
I was very comfortable with using VC++ 6.0. That's why I contemplate of buying .NET 2003. Since you suggest downloading free version, I was wondering does VC 2005 meet my requirement? From what I knew before, it could only be used to make console applications.

axon
08-30-2004, 10:39 AM
if you are at a university, ask around, because many schools have a deal with MS for their software. Visual Studio.NET professional cost me only shipping and handling ;)

RoD
08-30-2004, 10:44 AM
Dev C++

Cii
08-30-2004, 11:23 AM
Dev C++doesnt get much better than that. I've been using it exclusively for a while now and it has never given me problems. as a bonus, the new version has a feature similar to code completion ;)

Vicious
08-30-2004, 01:48 PM
The new Dev-C++ has everything I liked about VC++, I believe I like DevC++ BETTER that MSVC++

alphaoide
08-30-2004, 02:56 PM
The new Dev-C++ has everything I liked about VC++, I believe I like DevC++ BETTER that MSVC++
One time I helped a friend of mine debugging a program using VC++ and I was clueless what was wrong (It was a simple program). And I initiated to download DevCpp 'cause I'm aware of MS' deviance on standard, and voila, run without a warning on DevCpp

Raison
08-31-2004, 04:06 AM
most ppl seems to prefer DevC++. i looked at the website and it seems pretty good. So for now i will try it out and see if it suit my needs. Thanks everyone for the advice.

Victor
08-31-2004, 08:51 AM
GCC & G++ & MINGW + dev-c++ for win
GCC & G++ & VIM for linux
Stop using micro$oft software. Start using open source software.

whackaxe
08-31-2004, 11:52 AM
Dev C++ is ok to be fair but its no match to VC++. visual dialog editor? nope (or at least i didnt find it :P). class browser: prefer VC++ although devc++ does the job. project manager, devc++ is getting better on this. compiler wise, i don't know how mingw and vc++ match up, but i think VC++ does better Devc++ is also a bit unstable. in any case, most of the industry use VC++ do they not? and if its not VC++ its probably Boralnd.

how does VC++ compare to Borland actually?

Raison
08-31-2004, 12:12 PM
on a side note, does anyone have any idea when VC++ 2005 is out? I have decided to settle for DevC++, but i still want to own VC++ in the future.

Vicious
08-31-2004, 01:20 PM
Yes but think about this, Dev-C++ (the version in question ;)) is still in its beta state.

Now if you compare the Dev beta to MSVC++ 2005 beta...

I dont know, the MSVC++ beta is really the only MSVC++ ive used. And I found that Dev-C++ was all around LESS buggy.

whackaxe
08-31-2004, 01:41 PM
true, but thats not the question.if you want to get the job done without tearing your hair out over infinate memory error boxes, and you can't wait forever (which seems to be the case for devc++) then you'll have to get a good compiler. shure OSS is good i use it alot, but alot of the time the commercial equivelents are superior

RoD
08-31-2004, 01:47 PM
VC++ is powerful, noone can deny that, BUT compare that to the same features offered by Borland, Dev C++, etc and you realize, its just not worth the money. Sure, M$ has the edge, but they have the money. Give Dev C++ a little more time and you will be amazed im sure. I own .NEt, 2005 BETA, and Dev C++.

I'm staying with Dev C++.

silk.odyssey
08-31-2004, 07:23 PM
I am aware there is VC 2005 beta. What limitation does it have as a beta version? Should I just download and use it for time being till the commercial version is out? Any idea when is it going to be commercially released? Or should I just get VC.NET 2003 instead?


I've been playing around with vc 2005 beta and the only limitation I've noticed is the lack of resource editing. No dialog editor or menu editor or anything. The documentation is incomplete as well.

Raison
08-31-2004, 11:41 PM
I couldnt find the resource editor as well, which i had been heavily relying on.
Actually i cant find that in DevCpp too.

silk.odyssey
09-01-2004, 04:02 AM
I like the DevCpp IDE but the compiler it uses is too slow for me compared to vc.

alphaoide
09-01-2004, 08:14 AM
I like the DevCpp IDE but the compiler it uses is too slow for me compared to vc.
Confirmative. I don't know what makes it slow but it's indeed slow when I compile.

Raison
09-01-2004, 09:18 AM
true, but thats not the question.if you want to get the job done without tearing your hair out over infinate memory error boxes, and you can't wait forever (which seems to be the case for devc++) then you'll have to get a good compiler.

Nod nod. $%#@$# Now i realise I get errors almost everytime i close the application. I'm getting VS.NET 2003 from school.

major_small
09-01-2004, 09:28 AM
not only does DevC++ follow the standards more closely and offer just about as much as VS.NET, I don't have to deal with a whole bunch of files that waste space. when I create a dev project, it leaves me with the files I want and a .dev file. all I have to do to port the code to a different compiler is not include the dev file... whereas to port MSVC code, you have to exclude most of the files and hope it works right...

and on a side note, I've found importing files into Dev-C++ is a lot easier than importing them into .NET... .NET usually gives me errors about finding DBG errors and takes longer to compile in my experience.

on the other hand, .NET has a much better (in my experience) debugging mode than Dev-C++, but then again I never used Dev's debugging mode because I mostly do it manually... I only say .NET's is better because IMO, it's easier to use... but that's only because it's the only one I learned...

TLDR version: Dev-C++ has some shortcommings, but when you include the cost factor, it comes out on top.

whackaxe
09-01-2004, 02:04 PM
Dev c++ debugging interface is more recent than most the other features. before, debug just fired up GDB but now its integrted to the interface(which is damn sweet IMO). i think when DevC++ comes out of beta, it'll be great and might turn more amateurish programmers away from buying VC++, but till then you need tools which do what you want efficiently.

Vicious
09-01-2004, 02:52 PM
Dev c++ debugging interface is more recent than most the other features. before, debug just fired up GDB but now its integrted to the interface(which is damn sweet IMO). i think when DevC++ comes out of beta, it'll be great and might turn more amateurish programmers away from buying VC++, but till then you need tools which do what you want efficiently.

Completely agree.