What C(++) compiler(s) do you use?
Pages: 12
Basically, just post what C/C++ Compiler you use. If you use more than one, state which ones you use. I use Dev C++.
| cire wrote: |
|---|
| http://www.cplusplus.com/articles/36vU7k9E/ |
Lol
Well, I'm using MSVC++08 (Visual Studio 2008) and occasionally Code::Blocks with MingW or GCC, depending on the OS and from the PC i'm on.
I use GNU C++, MinG, MSVC++. Under Ubuntu/Vista depending.
Cire: Your link is outdated http://orwellengine.blogspot.com/ someone has picked up Dev-C++ and just updated it to 5.2.0.1 April 28, 2012.
Also, the comment in your link about MinG being outdated. The way Dev-C++ is you can download the current MinG version and just copy it over the old to keep the compiler updated. Dev-C++ is just an IDE like any other IDE so just change out the versions of the compiler and check settings for the IDE.
Cire: Your link is outdated http://orwellengine.blogspot.com/ someone has picked up Dev-C++ and just updated it to 5.2.0.1 April 28, 2012.
Also, the comment in your link about MinG being outdated. The way Dev-C++ is you can download the current MinG version and just copy it over the old to keep the compiler updated. Dev-C++ is just an IDE like any other IDE so just change out the versions of the compiler and check settings for the IDE.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
| Your link is outdated |
That article could probably use some updating, but it's less out of date than Dev-C++. I haven't come across a new user who has actually got far enough down the list on google to install anything other than the original Dev-C++, so I don't think the article has outlived it's usefulness yet.
| but it's less out of date than Dev-C++. |
That makes no sense, the article was last updated September 14, 2011 and Dev-C++ has been taken over and updated just last month :-/.
Though that article I don't agree with at all because I remember just having to download the updated compiler (MinG) and debugger (GDB) and copy them into the proper directories with no problem. The site used to have links where you could download the IDE with MinG or without it. That article's only valid point is the bugs from what I can see.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
| That makes no sense, the article was last updated September 14, 2011 and Dev-C++ has been taken over and updated just last month :-/. |
Heh. As noted on the Orwell site, it is a fork of the Dev-C++ software -- not a "taking over" of the project, although for all practical purposes it might as well be, since the orginal isn't being actively developed. It's unfortunate the only difference in the name is "Bloodshed" versus "Orwell". While they used similar version numbers Orwell started with 4.9.9.3 (released June 30, 2011) and Bloodshed ended with the 5.0 beta.
So it seems accurate to me to say an unqualified "Dev-C++" is outdated, but it's surely not worth much more discussion.
I think I'm going to update the article and mention the fork of Dev-C++ as a potential option and clarify that I'm talking about the official version of Dev-C++.
EDIT: Done. Now to wait for it to get approved.
-Albatross
EDIT: Done. Now to wait for it to get approved.
-Albatross
Last edited on
| Good afternoon males, females, natural hermaphrodites, unnatural hermaphrodites, unsexed, androgens, androids, blackberries, geeks, nerds, intelligent trousers, wabbits, wabbit stews, fork bombs, monkey derivatives, etc, etc, etc... |
That's the kind of intro which can't be unread.
| Why we've deprecated Dev-C++ |
Nobody deprecated anything. Much less so "we".
Last edited on
@BHXSpecter
It does make sense. Dev-C++ has a long way to go before it's completely on par with other compilers. Just because it's updated doesn't mean it's up to date.
[Note: I have no idea how the new Dev-C++ is; I'm just pointing out the flawed logic defending it.]
| but it's less out of date than Dev-C++. |
That makes no sense, the article was last updated September 14, 2011 and Dev-C++ has been taken over and updated just last month :-/. |
It does make sense. Dev-C++ has a long way to go before it's completely on par with other compilers. Just because it's updated doesn't mean it's up to date.
[Note: I have no idea how the new Dev-C++ is; I'm just pointing out the flawed logic defending it.]
Last edited on
A work, I am using
Sun Studio 12
IBM XL C/C++ 10.1
HP C/aC++ 6.25
At home, I am using
Clang 3.0
GNU gcc 4.6.3 (because gentoo is being slow with 4.7)
Intel C/C++ 11
Visual Studio 11 beta (mostly to verify things before posting to forums)
Sun Studio 12
IBM XL C/C++ 10.1
HP C/aC++ 6.25
At home, I am using
Clang 3.0
GNU gcc 4.6.3 (because gentoo is being slow with 4.7)
Intel C/C++ 11
Visual Studio 11 beta (mostly to verify things before posting to forums)
@BHXSpecter & Catfish
Many of the regulars on this forum *do* try to steer people away from the old Dev-C++. It's an old IDE and it doesn't help that the last version that most people use is a beta. Sure you can change the compiler toolchain it uses and bring it up to date, but I've heard many people say that after the update they were having problems with linker errors that they shouldn't normally be getting.
Orwell Dev-C++ isn't the original Dev-C++, and though it is based off the same code I feel it's important to recognize that it is a fork. It's a pretty good and rather up-to-date fork which is worth switching to if you're using the old Dev-C++, but it is a fork. It has its own separate sourceforge project that doesn't update the original Dev-C++ page.
I'm happy to support people switching to the Orwell Dev-C++, but I would like to recognize that the two Dev-C++s aren't the same project at different points in time with different lead developers. If Orwell ever gets a chance to use the original Dev-C++ sourceforge (and maybe webpage), I'll happily ask for my article to be deleted.
EDIT: I'm glad you liked my intro, Catfish. :P
@Topic:
For most of my development I use GCC 4.6.3. However, ever so often, I'll compile something with the latest Clang from their SCM. I like QtCreator as an IDE.
-Albatross
Many of the regulars on this forum *do* try to steer people away from the old Dev-C++. It's an old IDE and it doesn't help that the last version that most people use is a beta. Sure you can change the compiler toolchain it uses and bring it up to date, but I've heard many people say that after the update they were having problems with linker errors that they shouldn't normally be getting.
Orwell Dev-C++ isn't the original Dev-C++, and though it is based off the same code I feel it's important to recognize that it is a fork. It's a pretty good and rather up-to-date fork which is worth switching to if you're using the old Dev-C++, but it is a fork. It has its own separate sourceforge project that doesn't update the original Dev-C++ page.
I'm happy to support people switching to the Orwell Dev-C++, but I would like to recognize that the two Dev-C++s aren't the same project at different points in time with different lead developers. If Orwell ever gets a chance to use the original Dev-C++ sourceforge (and maybe webpage), I'll happily ask for my article to be deleted.
EDIT: I'm glad you liked my intro, Catfish. :P
@Topic:
For most of my development I use GCC 4.6.3. However, ever so often, I'll compile something with the latest Clang from their SCM. I like QtCreator as an IDE.
-Albatross
Last edited on
Why do people keep referring to Dev C++ as a "compiler" and why did none of the more seasoned users here call them out on it yet?
If you're so concerned, why don't you call someone out on it, instead of just asking why nobody does?
| Why do people keep referring to Dev C++ as a "compiler" and why did none of the more seasoned users here call them out on it yet? |
It's a pretty common thing, in my observation, for a development environment to be referred to with the catch-all compiler despite it's technical inaccuracy. Doesn't seem like it's worth correcting every time you see it (and most new users would opt for the (doubly outdated) compiler-included bundle so it may make a little more sense from that perspective.)
Last edited on
It's a little annoying though. As long as they're saying Dev you can guess they're using MinGW g++, but what are you gonna do if they start referring to Eclipse as a compiler?
@Albatross:
Yeah, that was my problem. It was anti-Dev-C++, but there are three flavors of Dev now (Bloodshed, wx, and Orwell) so being anti-Dev-C++ in general is bad since there are now two Dev-C++ name projects. We need to start directing people to Orwell's version instead of Bloodshed's old version if they are wanting a Dev-C++ IDE. Considering Bloodshed has been outdated for seven years now, I would consider Orwell unofficially taking over Dev-C++ as they are using the last updated source from Bloodshed and continuing work on it for their versions. I doubt Bloodshed will ever be updated after seven years anyways.
Yeah, that was my problem. It was anti-Dev-C++, but there are three flavors of Dev now (Bloodshed, wx, and Orwell) so being anti-Dev-C++ in general is bad since there are now two Dev-C++ name projects. We need to start directing people to Orwell's version instead of Bloodshed's old version if they are wanting a Dev-C++ IDE. Considering Bloodshed has been outdated for seven years now, I would consider Orwell unofficially taking over Dev-C++ as they are using the last updated source from Bloodshed and continuing work on it for their versions. I doubt Bloodshed will ever be updated after seven years anyways.
| I doubt Bloodshed will ever be updated after seven years anyways. |
Maybe it is going to be updated/it is being updated because of C++11. Or maybe not. Who knows.
Pages: 12