While searching the internet I always come across several posts where they're saying that Bloodshed Dev-C++ isn't for advanced use (rather for newbies), why are they saying that?
Is MinGW not an advanced compiler? Or is it just because they aren't developping Dev-C++ anymore...
I know there's Code::Blocks, but I just find the program too heavy...

Can someone please give his opinion about the free available borland compiler, is it good to use nowadays?

Thanks in advance!

The MinGW is a native Windows port (without Cygwin) of the GNU C++ compiler. I think it's a good general purpose compiler. Both IDEs (Dev-C++ and Code::Blocks) use this compiler but the Dev_C++ is a frozen project - that's the long and the short of it.

>I know there's Code::Blocks, but I just find the program too heavy
Code::Blocks is too heavy!? Have you ever seen the best free IDE - MS VS 2008 Express?

Borland free compilers: no comments ;)

Ok, agreed with that Microsoft crap but if you use an old(er) IDE (such as Dev-C++) with the newest MinGW compiler, does it in that case make sense if you use Dev-C++ or Code::Blocks, I don't think so, please tell me if I'm wrong...

With that Code::Blocks is too heavy I meant that it has too much options I don't use, I don't like such bloated user interfaces (this applies also to the M$ ones), sorry for that...

>Can someone please give his opinion about the free
>available borland compiler, is it good to use nowadays?
I assume you're talking about the 5.5 command line compiler, which is good, but it's starting to get dated. The latest and greatest free compiler is a part of Borland's Turbo C++ Explorer project. However, if you think Code::Blocks is too bloated, you probably won't be able to find any IDE that isn't.

If you like MinGW, you don't have to use it with an IDE. The IDE is not the compiler, in pretty much every case. Even with Microsoft you can use cl.exe directly from the command line.

>Ok, agreed with that Microsoft crap
That "crap" happens to be an excellent IDE. You might be surprised to learn that other people find the "bloated" features terribly useful.

>this applies also to the M$ ones
You seem like the kind of person that would be better off switching to Linux. At least that way your name calling will seem less clueless and hypocritical.

> Is MinGW not an advanced compiler? Or is it just because they aren't developping Dev-C++ anymore...
1. separate the compiler from the IDE. You can normally upgrade one without the other.
2. dev-C++ is not being developed; it also has a fair number of bugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_integrated_development_environments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_source_code_editors
Choose your own pair of shoes which feel most comfortable to you.

Everything else is just opinion, that's why there's so much choice out there. In the end, it's you that's got to live with your choice, not us.

Me >Have you ever seen the best free IDE - - MS VS 2008 Express?
You>>Ok, agreed with that Microsoft crap...
??? ;)

Well well, I guess the "My fav IDE/Compiler war" stared again!!
>Code::Blocks is too heavy I meant that it has too much options I don't use
I have a simple reply.....Don't use the "much options".
Code::Block appears great to me. On both Linux and Windows.
I have heard very (surprisingly) good response about MS VS 2008 Express.
Or, you can always give a :P to IDE's and use command-line compiling which works best.

Me >Have you ever seen the best free IDE - - MS VS 2008 Express?
You>>Ok, agreed with that Microsoft crap...
??? ;)

I meant that I agree with your statement about it was heavier than the Code::Blocks IDE...

The latest and greatest free compiler is a part of Borland's Turbo C++ Explorer project.

Is that the exactly same C++ compiler used in Turbo C++ Explorer Professional?
Is it really true that it's * fully * compatible with the ANSI/ISO C++ standard?

>Is that the exactly same C++ compiler used in Turbo C++ Explorer Professional?
Assuming you mean the latest version of C++ Builder, no. Turbo Explorer is a stable code freeze and the bleeding edge has moved on since then. Though in my opinion you're unlikely to notice a difference unless you're a rather advanced C++ developer keeping up with the work on C++0x.

>Is it really true that it's * fully * compatible with the ANSI/ISO C++ standard?
I don't believe anybody has claimed that it is (along with every other compiler vendor except perhaps Comeau). Generally the unimplemented features are so obscure or problematic that there isn't sufficient demand to justify the cost of adding them. This is especially true with tricky and expensive implementations like export.

Sorry for the late replying, but thank you all for your help...
I'm using MinGW and Code::Blocks now, works like a charm!

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.