For years when people post that they are using Turbo-C/C++ they always get a heated response saying basically "why are you using that piece of sh*t? Use Dev-C++ instead."

Dev-C++ was being recommended because it's newer, it followed the standard better, it's free, etc. A couple years ago, though, it stopped being supported. Now, just because it's not being supported, it's now terrible? It even elicits responses like

Lol I hate to say it but Dev-C++ is a poor choice also, it's buggy and no longer supported as far as I know.

Buggy? If it was so buggy, why was it being recommended for so many years? What kind of bugs does it have? And why are programmers dissing it all of a sudden? When it became unsupported did it also break?

I don't know whether the IDE is buggy or not, but it is distributed with an outdated version of MinGW compiler and has a lousy debugger, not very programmer-friendly. Since its no longer being updated, such as with a current version of MinGW, programmers should stop using it and get Code::Blocks instead. CB is not only a nicer IDE, but it has a decent debugger and is distributed with current version of MinGW.

And why are programmers dissing it all of a sudden?

I suspect a bunch of parrots just jumped on the bandwagon. Aside from the debugger interface, of which I wasn't a fan, I had no serious issues with Dev-C++ (either stable or beta).

However, Dev-C++ is still a frozen project which defaults to an outdated compiler. To get Dev-C++ up to date, you'd need to make changes to the base install that beginners asking about IDEs won't find simple. Code::Blocks is a better choice, and Visual C++ better still[1], at least in terms of install and go.

Is Dev-C++ bad? No. Are there better options? Hell yes.


[1] Code::Blocks, like Dev-C++, targets MinGW and MinGW's current version of gcc is still somewhat out of date. I say that Visual C++ is better because the compiler is state of the art out of the box, while the simplest install of Code::Blocks with an up to date gcc is multi-step and somewhat manual.

Edited 5 Years Ago by Narue: n/a

>>Code::Blocks, like Dev-C++, targets MinGW and MinGW's current version of gcc is still somewhat out of date.

CB current version is 10.5 and is distributed with gcc version 4.4.1 copyright 2009. Is that not the same as current version of MinGW without CB? I don't want to install it just to find out.

Just as I surmised:

I suspect a bunch of parrots just jumped on the bandwagon. Aside from the debugger interface, of which I wasn't a fan, I had no serious issues with Dev-C++ (either stable or beta).

IOW:
It's not the bleeding edge so it's bad. It's not under development so it's bad.
rather than
It works well. It's a little outdated, but for a beginner it's a perfectly acceptable compiler/IDE pair for learning the language.

Bottom line:

Is Dev-C++ bad? No. Are there better options? Hell yes.

Of course there are better compilers. There always are and always will be. But is Dev-C badmouthing warranted? It doesn't seem so.

I still want to hear from someone that can explain how it's buggy... pseudorandom21? Care to backup your statement?


...while the simplest install of Code::Blocks with an up to date gcc is multi-step and somewhat manual.

Sounds like a Linux-user's dream software... :icon_wink:

>>CB current version is 10.5 and is distributed with gcc version 4.4.1 copyright 2009. Is that not the same as current version of MinGW without CB?

The current release version of GCC is, of course, 4.6.1 (from June 27 2011). Of course, it takes a little while longer to get working on an archaic OS like Windows (with MinGW). So, the current version of GCC on MinGW's repository is 4.5.2 (released by GCC in december 2010, and ported to MinGW in january 2011). If you compile from source, you have 4.6.2 and 4.7.0 (experimental) available as well.


>>I suspect a bunch of parrots just jumped on the bandwagon.

I do admit that I am a parrot when it comes to DevC++. But I did, like many others here, see several threads that report bizarre problems, and after suggesting to upgrade for a more recent IDE/Compiler setup, problems were fixed.

If I recall, many of the problems people encounter with DevC++ have to do with using a recent version of Windows (Vista or 7) and getting problems with crashes at execution. This is the main problem with using an out-of-date setup, you risk that the run-time libraries, headers or ABIs will be no longer compatible with the OS it's running in or the libraries it is linking to (especially when using non-microsoft compilers and run-time libraries).

As far as DevC++ being good or bad, in the context of using it when it was up-to-date, I have no idea, I have never used it. In some sense, this is like asking a teenager what is "bad" about a type-writer... most of them probably never even touched one, and if they did, would you really expect them to give you reasons why it was a bad tool? Won't you expect them to just say: "we have computers now, so why use a type-writer instead?".


>>But is Dev-C badmouthing warranted?

I don't see anyone you could hurt by doing so, it's no longer maintained, so, whoever worked on it no longer cares anyways. If you badmouth GCC just because you prefer another compiler, you will hurt the team of people developing this free open-source compiler suite, that's not warranted (although "constructive criticism", as opposed to badmouthing, is always a good thing, and usually very welcomed).

The way I see it, it is OK to use a little badmouthing or exaggeration if it gets people moving forward technologically. Wouldn't you use a bit of ridicule or badmouthing if a colleague of yours was still working with a type-writer instead of a computer?


>>>>...while the simplest install of Code::Blocks with an up to date gcc is multi-step and somewhat manual.
>>Sounds like a Linux-user's dream software..

Is badmouthing Linux really warranted? You should know that one of Linux's main advantage is the fact that package management systems make the installation processes for any software super simple and automatic. Installing software in Windows is such a hassle compared to Linux.

Edited 5 Years Ago by mike_2000_17: n/a

Comments
Nice.

>>>>...while the simplest install of Code::Blocks with an up to date gcc is multi-step and somewhat manual.
>>Sounds like a Linux-user's dream software..

Is badmouthing Linux really warranted? You should know that one of Linux's main advantage is the fact that package management systems make the installation processes for any software super simple and automatic. Installing software in Windows is such a hassle compared to Linux.

Who's badmouthing Linux? The O/S is know to be a geek's O/S. You need to know more about the system to get things running. It's like using a car with a manual transmission -- more control, more knowledge needed. Not a bad thing.

Windows is the automatic transmission of the O/S world -- put it in drive and step on the gas. Any lameoid can use it.

>>The O/S is know to be a geek's O/S.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that, within a thread in which you try to break the parroting of "it is known that DevC++ is bad", you are parroting the idea that "Linux is known to be a geek's OS". This is indeed a very old misconception that is being parroted all over the place by people who don't know Linux (I suggest you investigate that matter for yourself). The only thing "automatic" about windows is that it is pre-installed on most PCs, the rest is just a succession of frustrating hassle and time wasted to get anything done with it. In linux, any software is just one command-line away, while on windows you need to search on the web, download a few candidates, launch the install, enter a bunch of irrelevant configurations, press "next" a thousand times, and while you're doing that, you're not doing anything else (or even worse, you have to make a trip to a computer store and buy the software and bring it home). That's not to mention constantly being aggravated by "automatic" updates and by virus protection, scanning and cleaning. Anyways, let's not start a debate on that...

The only thing "automatic" about windows is that it is pre-installed on most PCs, the rest is just a succession of frustrating hassle and time wasted to get anything done with it.

Not most people's experience...

...while on windows you need to search on the web, download a few candidates, launch the install, enter a bunch of irrelevant configurations, press "next" a thousand times, and while you're doing that, you're not doing anything else (or even worse, you have to make a trip to a computer store and buy the software and bring it home).

This sounds just like those commercials for pasta cookers and the like. "No one can cook, strain, and serve spaghetti without dropping most of it down the drain, burning themselves, and serving what's left in a goopy gloppy sticky mess! Use the Linux pasta maker!"

In linux, any software is just one command-line away,

Really!?!? Kool. Sorry, I didn't realize every single software package available for Linux is on the distribution media! You never need to search the web for anything, ever! No downloading ever. Everything you could ever want is right there, in the distro package. By the way, how do you even get Linux? It must magically appear on your computer simply by thinking it into existence, eh?

You sound like the Anthony Sullivan of computers, proving which is better by half-truths and misinformation. Sorry, don't buy it.

I am not a Linux hater in any way, shape, or form. I just resent people insulting my intelligence like TV commercials do.

Anyways, let's not start a debate on that...

Yeah, let's not... :icon_wink:

OK ... Let me just say, I'm no programmer 'I don't make money from doing it.'

I've ALWAYS used dev-c on windows XP. In fact I still use windows XP. I always wondered from a professional POV, what advantages there are from using a more up to date compiler?

The debugger is totally crap, but then I've always used 'couts ' to debug my code so that doesn't bother me. But I'm with WaltP here. I don't see the issue why it gets slated because it isn't supported anymore?

And I've used VS for projects such as vb.net, but I'd never use it for c++. The whole idea why I like dev is that it is really light and not bloated at all and has a small download. But then I have never done any professional programming so to speak.

Edited 5 Years Ago by iamthwee: n/a

>>what advantages there are from using a more up to date compiler?

1. Bug fixes -- yes gcc has had its share of bugs too

2. c and c++ standards change. And they will change again in the near future. You need an up-to-date compiler which complies with those new standards.

3. Better performance. Compiler writers are always attempting to make their compilers faster and make the code they generate faster. If you are writing commercial programs you will want to take advantage of that.

Comments
+

When I used it there were bugs, forgive me for expressing my opinion. I hate Dev-C++ actually, it was a piece of crap.

Comments
Saying so doesn't make it true. Testable examples do. As far as we know, your bugs were programmer errors.

I'm someone who uses old software all the time, and it continually amazes me the way most folks rail at old software. I fully realize I'm in the minority in terms of personally having no problems whatsoever with old software, and I've just had to face that, mostly keep my mouth shut (I don't enjoy being flammed anymore than anyone else does), and go on. I've accepted the fact that folks regularly throw away or recycle perfectly functioning computers that are only a couple years old, and disgard old perfectly functioning software and replace it with buggy bloated newer software. While I don't understand any of it, I think about it just about every day. The only possible theory I can come up with to explain all this (I think about it a lot) is its just the software related manifestation of consummerism whereby planned and hopefully accelerated obsolescence is required to maintain corporeate profits, keep programmers employed, so on and so forth.

Sometime in the late 1990s I used QuickBasic 4.5 (my Mother bought it for me for a birthday present around 1985 or so) to write data collector programs for the dual boot DOS / Windows CE data recorders my organization (a large forestry organization) uses to collect timber data. At this time in 2011 those programs are still being used and form the mainstay of out field data collection. I would guess that so far 300 million dollars worth of timber sale data have been collected with those DOS data recorders running a piece of software written over ten years ago. Even when I wrote the software in the late nineties, QuickBasic had ben obsolete for ten years. And do you want to know what I find interesting? Those programs run perfectly on my 32 bit Win7 computer, whereas Visual Basic programs I wrote at that same time don't!

I recall a humorous statement Dale Rogerson made in his circa 2000 book "Inside COM". He was discussing GUIDs and stated that at present levels of GUID use we should have enough unique numbers to last us to the year 3500 or so, at which time he surmised that, except for some old Fortran programs, there likely wouldn't be much present day software still in use :)

Added later:

Having said all that, I don't particularly care for Dev-C++ anymore. I had bad experiences with it. I presently use CodeBlocks and VS.

Edited 5 Years Ago by Frederick2: n/a

Comments
My experience exactly.

omg.. thread of hate? I Love dev-C++ for the argument that it doesn't work well on windows 7.. thats a load.. It works perfectly if they knew how to install it..

Only one problem I ever found with it.. that was Build error 16.. switching to a different compiler fixes that.. Happens when u have included extra resources like a dll that imports functions from another language like pascal..
Switching to another compiler like codeblocks fixed it but visualstudio 2010 also has the same error 16 build problem like dev c++ so I just thought it was a normal error..

Though one problem is that the intellisense for it doesn't work on win7.. thats fine just gives me all the more reason to learn the code without relying on intellisense.. As far as I know: intellisense doesn't work for vs2010 either (for c++ programs & .net).

Still no reason to bash it.. code compiles, easy to use..

Edited 5 Years Ago by triumphost: n/a

For years when people post that they are using Turbo-C/C++ they always get a heated response saying basically "why are you using that piece of sh*t? Use Dev-C++ instead."

Dev-C++ was being recommended because it's newer, it followed the standard better, it's free, etc. A couple years ago, though, it stopped being supported. Now, just because it's not being supported, it's now terrible? It even elicits responses like

Buggy? If it was so buggy, why was it being recommended for so many years? What kind of bugs does it have? And why are programmers dissing it all of a sudden? When it became unsupported did it also break?

Here is why I don't recommend Dev-Cpp
1. Outdated Mingw (If you are so in love with it, compile/configure it yourself to the latest)
2. No Support, in case of any bug. The argument goes like this: If you find something buggy, no one will fix it for you. So why try it when there is better alternative?
3. Bad interface (At least for me), very ugly - But then, the pragmatist says: who cares? I do :)

If you insists on Dev-Cpp, there is active version developed called wxDevCpp (wxWidgets RAD + DevCpp). I would recommend though CodeLite (Which I use) and its rival, Code::Blocks. There are other like KDevelop et al but I have never loved them enough to learn them.

.... Linux? The O/S is know to be a geek's O/S. You need to know more about the system to get things running. It's like using a car with a manual transmission -- more control, more knowledge needed. Not a bad thing.

Windows is the automatic transmission of the O/S world -- put it in drive and step on the gas. Any lameoid can use it.

Mh! When was your last time to play with Linux? Which Distro did you fiddle around with?
With Ubuntu (at least starting from version 10.04) and Fedora (From version 12, at least) they just work!
Anyway that is kind of myth even my friends had. They didn't even knew that 10.04 was Ubuntu, let alone being Linux! May be they thought it was Mac OSz;)

Edited 5 Years Ago by Stefano Mtangoo: n/a

Comments
http://images.daniweb.com/smilies/sleek/qqb007.gif

Mh! When was your last time to play with Linux? Which Distro did you fiddle around with?
With Ubuntu (at least starting from version 10.04) and Fedora (From version 12, at least) they just work!
Anyway that is kind of myth even my friends had. They didn't even knew that 10.04 was Ubuntu, let alone being Linux! May be they thought it was Mac OSz;)

Must say I definitely don't find ubuntu just works or if it just works it soon sure to break. That's just my experience not against linux just ubuntu personally I prefer VectorLinux(slackware based) solid and fast better look and feel than unity.

I work on windows because I tinker less because I guess there is less opportunity to.

Just started learning C++ recently and installed codeblocks, I didn't really like it but came across codelite.

Unsure if it lacks some greater features but I like it http://codelite.org/Main/ReadMore

Must say I definitely don't find ubuntu just works or if it just works it soon sure to break. That's just my experience not against linux just ubuntu personally I prefer VectorLinux(slackware based) solid and fast better look and feel than unity.

I know many guys (me excluded) don't like unity. Just at startup select classic and there you have Gnome thing....me and unity!

As far as I know: intellisense doesn't work for vs2010 either (for c++ programs & .net).

Does that mean C++/CLI ? No it doesn't work for C++/CLI, it works for C++ and it works for .NET, though separately. The intellisense is awesome actually.

This article has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.