Hi guys, i am new to c++ programming and using Bloodshed DevC++, i am having problem in running the code, after successful compilation when i try to run the code the command prompt opens and close within a second..
help will be appreciated...
Printable View
Hi guys, i am new to c++ programming and using Bloodshed DevC++, i am having problem in running the code, after successful compilation when i try to run the code the command prompt opens and close within a second..
help will be appreciated...
OK, your problem: SourceForge.net: Pause console - cpwiki
Also suggest you switch IDE since Dev-C++ is, AFAIK, no longer maintained: SourceForge.net: Integrated Development Environment - cpwiki
Thanks for your suggestion Elysia
I am using CodeBlocks now and its working great...
I'm using Dev C++ in windows 7... haven't had any issues. Wouldn't a simple
solve the problem?Code:#include <iostream>
int main( int argc, char* args[])
{
//Imagine random useful code
//where you want to pause (probably near end of program to insure it ran properly)
cin.get();
return 0;
}
Did you try reading the first link? It describes the issue of "pausing" the console clearly.
And Dev-C++ is, as stated, no longer maintained. There are good maintained IDEs out there.
Where are the recommendations for Dev-C++ coming from? I see lots of new C++ programmers that go for it, and I don't really know why.
Its a Dead IDE, and IMO somewhat buggy.
I did not read the entire link. My apologies. I was merely asking a question being someone else using 7 and Dev C++. And was curious as to "why" not being maintained = needing a new compiler. Am I going to find when I get into 3d programming that the newest versions of directX are not supported in DevC++? And the reason I stumbled upon Dev C++ is I did a google search about 7 months ago when I started learning C++ for "free C++ Compiler" and it came up first. Then every tutorial I used linked to it so I decided to download. I wasn't aware this was a outdated or bad compiler this is the first I had heard of it.
Well stick around these forums long enough, and you'll hear the condemnation of Dev-C++ echoed time and time again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind
Should you switch to a newer compiler? (AFAIK, Dev-C++ ships with an outdated version of MinGW) That's entirely up to you. No one will twist your arm, but then don't feel bad when you can't take advantage of C++ features in the new C++0x standard. So understand, it's not the text editing aspect of Dev-C++ that bugs most people, it's the outdated compiler. You could use Dev-C++ with a newer compiler as well...
I also blame academia for the gratuitous use of Dev-C++. First, academia has their head up the GCC @$$ for whatever reason, and old fart stubborn profs have a hard time believing that any Microsoft tool might be better than their old outdated open source crap-ware. With that said, CodeBlocks is an excellent IDE and free IDE that ships with a much more current MinGW (GCC for Windows) compiler. In terms of features, it's leaps and bounds beyond Dev-C++.
Visual Studio 2010 Express is also free, and ships with the MSVC compiler, which (correct me if I'm wrong), is the compiler that is furthest along with the new C++0x standard. Visual Studio is my favorite, so I highly recommend that (don't let your profs brainwash you with their Dev-C++ and GCC nonsense). There's nothing wrong with GCC, but you shouldn't have a problem with MS, especially as a developer, MS makes kick-@$$ development tools ;)
Thats the problem I dont' even know what C++ 01x is. So I haven't reached the point to where I was mad I wasn't able to use it lol. I will have to look into that. Thanks for the information.
In all fairness, in school you'll be tasked to tackle the "classic programming problems". And the value of the lesson is understanding how to solve the problem, not discovering all the nuances of a particular language (personally, I am constantly discovering C++'s nuances, it's a big language)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind
So in that respect, sure, it doesn't matter which IDE you're using. But perhaps for your own benefit, make two versions of your programs, one that will appease your profs, and another that makes better and more current use of the language.
It's analogous to wearing knickers, sure they can act as pants, but everyone is going to point and stare when you walk down the street
If you use Dev-C++ 4.9.9.2, ignore the intellisense, don't use smart tabs, and a maybe few other stuff that can be a little buggy, Dev-C++ is more or less okay, in my opinion. The compiler toolchain that comes with Dev-C++ 4.9.9.2 is the MinGW port of GCC 3.4.3 (or 3.4.5, I have since forgotten), which is okay with respect to the current C++ standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind
A new maintainer would really come in handy to fix those IDE bugs, and then upgrading the default compiler when the next version of the C++ standard is published, which might be next year or the year after. That said, I recall being told by a friend from the Dev-C++ forums that wxDev-C++ should be considered the direct successor to Dev-C++, though personally I have only tried CodeBlocks.
You would do well not to treat "academia" as one lump of professors who have the same opinion concerning tools that their students should use. Furthermore, you correctly recognise that IDEs and compilers are not the same thing, yet with the term "GCC @$$" in the same sentence, you imply that GCC is "old outdated open source crap-ware", a term that might apply to Dev-C++ these days, but which is clearly absurd (other than "open source") when applied to GCC.Quote:
Originally Posted by StainedBlue
I think that that is debatable. In any case, C++0x (or C++1x) is not a standard. C++03 is the latest version of the C++ standard. There is always a risk that compilers that implement features that are intended to be part of the next version of C++ could end up like MSVC6, with stuff that might have become standard, but aren't because they were finalised later to be different. Perhaps concepts can be considered an example of this with respect to the next version of C++.Quote:
Originally Posted by StainedBlue
Speaking of which: No Pants Subway Ride 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by StainedBlue
Sorry, guess I wasn't exactly clear. I suppose I'll redefine the academia I was talking about to the profs whose students end up here armed with Dev-C++ and C++ techniques of the 1990s.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
Also, "GCC @$$" was intended to illuminate the apparent disdain much of CS academia has toward Microsoft. Certainly I have nothing against GCC or *nix or anything open-source. I use many open-source programs, and they are wonderful. The "old outdated open source crap-ware" was a poke at Dev-C++, not GCC. Again, sorry if I wasn't clear.