By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,885 Members | 1,474 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,885 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

C IDE Recommendations

P: n/a
Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone recommend?
I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and I guess I want
to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Thanks in advance.

(Sorry if this is off topic, c.l.c is just about the language, correct?)
--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Aug 28 '06
Share this Question
Share on Google+
70 Replies


P: n/a
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:17:20 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
Hijacking a thread is rude,

(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting nonsense is rude, and makes other people waste their time.

Disclaimer
----------
I am not saying that Keith Thompson posts nonsense.
Actually, by posting that very remark, you are definitely implying
that you think that. Read up on the meaning of disingenuous if you
have trouble understanding this.
>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.
Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 1 '06 #51

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre said:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:17:20 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
<snip>
>
>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.

Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.
<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 1 '06 #52

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark McIntyre said:

>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:17:20 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

<snip>
>>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.

Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.


<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>
<double-nit>
Depending on which country you are from, there may
be no law which differentiates between written and
verbal defamation.
</dn>

--
goose
Have I offended you? Send flames to root@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
Sep 1 '06 #53

P: n/a
Andrew Poelstra wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???


IIRC, you shifted the topic to IDE's (specifically, yours),
Yes, since the original poster said:
C IDE Recommendations // Subject line!!
I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?
proceeded
to explain that you needed to make a project to hold information for
said IDE,
Because "wmaple" answered to my post with:
There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie
some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this
situation. Can lcc work like
turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?
and then began to argue about the benefits of projects (or
makefiles, or whatever).
Yes that subthread was started with the reply of wmaple (wm****@126.com)
When informed that for small, hacky little programs, making an actual
project file would cause more trouble than it saves, you immediately
took that stance and declared that command line usage is the Right
Thing (in some cases).
Yes, that is my opinion. So what?
When confronted with this, you stated that you didn't hijack anything,
because all you did was suggest using a command line (that's not all
you did), and that it's perfectly fine because most of the experts here
also prefer commandlines.
And I still say, if you care to follow the original discussion as it was
and not as you imagine it was.
You seem to have forgotten that neither command lines or IDE's are on
topic in a C group, and you have shifted a somewhat-topical thread to
those two subjects, neither of which belong here.
The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.

That's what I call
hijacking. Not only that, but your hijacking caused a flurry of come-
backs from regulars pointing out your rudeness, thus guaranteeing the
success of your off-topic post in hijacking the thread.
So, if I say something and all "regulars"
fall on me like crazy it is MY FAULT obviously!

What a logic my dear.
>

Finally, you seem to do such things very frequently in this group,
often simply to insult Richard Heathfield (and it's very rare for
you to have an actual point in doing so).
Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...

Well no.

He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)

And *I* insult HIM of course.
>
Notes after checking groups.google.com:
1) This thread wasn't ontopic in the first place, so there seems to be
no major issue (in this case).
2) Your original thread-hijacking post was a smarmy "Welcome back" to
Mr. Heathfield. Hmm.
Yes, I was sorry that the holidays are over.
Sep 1 '06 #54

P: n/a
jacob navia said:

<snip>
>
Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...
You do...
>
Well no.
You don't...
>
He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)
I did? I don't recall doing that. Still, if the cap fits...
>
And *I* insult HIM of course.
You really can't make your mind up, can you?

If in doubt, be polite.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 1 '06 #55

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:

<snip>
>>Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...


You do...

>>Well no.


You don't...

>>He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)


I did? I don't recall doing that. Still, if the cap fits...

>>And *I* insult HIM of course.


You really can't make your mind up, can you?

If in doubt, be polite.
Well that was 2 minutes before you wrote:
No, I don't automatically think people are stupid for disagreeing
with me. After all, I am occasionally wrong.
>
Then I answered

OK, In that case I retire my words.

So this explains that. There are several threads going on.

jacob
Sep 1 '06 #56

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Yes, since the original poster said:
>C IDE Recommendations // Subject line!!

I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?
Boy, is my face red. I completely missed the subject line. :-}

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.
Sep 1 '06 #57

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.
For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.

(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Sep 2 '06 #58

P: n/a
Andrew Poelstra wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

>>Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>>>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

Yes, since the original poster said:
>>>C IDE Recommendations // Subject line!!

I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?


Boy, is my face red. I completely missed the subject line. :-}
OK, doesn't matter. No harm done :-)

Sep 2 '06 #59

P: n/a
goose wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Mark McIntyre said:
>><ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

<snip>
>>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.

Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.

<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>

<double-nit>
Depending on which country you are from, there may
be no law which differentiates between written and
verbal defamation.
</dn>
Well, the quality of this thread is so high that I am enthralled.
I suspect I can improve it with a <THREAD PLONK>.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Sep 2 '06 #60

P: n/a
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical.
Yes. In fact, in comp.lang.c we discuss the COMPuter programming LANGuage
known as C. I know that seems rather strange, given the name of the group,
but c'est la vie.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 2 '06 #61

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???


IIRC, you shifted the topic to IDE's (specifically, yours),

Yes, since the original poster said:
C IDE Recommendations // Subject line!!

I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?
>proceeded
to explain that you needed to make a project to hold information for
said IDE,

Because "wmaple" answered to my post with:
There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie
some trivial programs
because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this
situation. Can lcc work like
turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?
>and then began to argue about the benefits of projects (or
makefiles, or whatever).
Yes that subthread was started with the reply of wmaple (wm****@126.com)
>When informed that for small, hacky little programs, making an actual
project file would cause more trouble than it saves, you immediately
took that stance and declared that command line usage is the Right
Thing (in some cases).

Yes, that is my opinion. So what?
>When confronted with this, you stated that you didn't hijack anything,
because all you did was suggest using a command line (that's not all
you did), and that it's perfectly fine because most of the experts here
also prefer commandlines.

And I still say, if you care to follow the original discussion as it was
and not as you imagine it was.
>You seem to have forgotten that neither command lines or IDE's are on
topic in a C group, and you have shifted a somewhat-topical thread to
those two subjects, neither of which belong here.

The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.

>That's what I call
hijacking. Not only that, but your hijacking caused a flurry of come-
backs from regulars pointing out your rudeness, thus guaranteeing the
success of your off-topic post in hijacking the thread.

So, if I say something and all "regulars"
fall on me like crazy it is MY FAULT obviously!

What a logic my dear.
>>

Finally, you seem to do such things very frequently in this group,
often simply to insult Richard Heathfield (and it's very rare for
you to have an actual point in doing so).

Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...

Well no.

He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)

And *I* insult HIM of course.
>>
Notes after checking groups.google.com:
1) This thread wasn't ontopic in the first place, so there seems to be
no major issue (in this case).
2) Your original thread-hijacking post was a smarmy "Welcome back" to
Mr. Heathfield. Hmm.

Yes, I was sorry that the holidays are over.
Which is off topic nonetheless since this is not about ANSI C.
Furthermore, this is why I didn't really want an argument about
command-line compiling versus IDE compiling.

The thread's off topic nature I apologise for, I just didn't know where
else to put it. But my apologies Mr Navia for my prior rudeness to you.

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Sep 2 '06 #62

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.

For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.

(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)
Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally which
should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to easily
port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Sep 2 '06 #63

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>>The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.
For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.
(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)

Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?
I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Sep 2 '06 #64

P: n/a
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:19:23 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Mark McIntyre said:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:17:20 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
<snip>
>>
>>>Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.

Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.

<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>
I sit corrected.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 2 '06 #65

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.
For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.
(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)
Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?

I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Sep 2 '06 #66

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
[...]
>>Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?
I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.
Let me add that you should get advice about this from more people than
just me.

Maximum portability isn't always the most important thing. For
example, a lot of programmers might be able to assume that their code
only needs to be compilable with recent releases of gcc; others might
be able to assume POSIX support, or Windows, or whatever. Or you
might find the advantages of "//" comments more important than the
risk that a strict C90 compiler won't support them.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Sep 2 '06 #67

P: n/a
take a look at www.codeblocks.org

Sep 3 '06 #68

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
[...]
>>>Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?
I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.

Let me add that you should get advice about this from more people than
just me.

Maximum portability isn't always the most important thing. For
example, a lot of programmers might be able to assume that their code
only needs to be compilable with recent releases of gcc; others might
be able to assume POSIX support, or Windows, or whatever. Or you
might find the advantages of "//" comments more important than the
risk that a strict C90 compiler won't support them.
I agree with Keith. In addition, you might have to do things which
cannot be done without extensions to C. However, when doing this you
should try to keep your system specific pats isolated from the rest of
the code. This will ease porting if/when you need to and generally also
lead to a better program structure.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 3 '06 #69

P: n/a
Flash Gordon wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrites:
[...]
>>>>Keith, which standard do you try and adhere to? Or more generally
which should you try and adhere too, if you would like to be able to
easily port code to Linux/Windows/Mac?
I usually try to stick to C90, avoiding anything that would be
incompatible with C99 (for example, using "restrict" as an
identifier). I think that's pretty much what youa have to do if you
want maximal portability. Many compilers support *parts* of C99, but
not necessarily the same parts.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't want to be learning the wrong ways to
do things.

Let me add that you should get advice about this from more people than
just me.

Maximum portability isn't always the most important thing. For
example, a lot of programmers might be able to assume that their code
only needs to be compilable with recent releases of gcc; others might
be able to assume POSIX support, or Windows, or whatever. Or you
might find the advantages of "//" comments more important than the
risk that a strict C90 compiler won't support them.

I agree with Keith. In addition, you might have to do things which
cannot be done without extensions to C. However, when doing this you
should try to keep your system specific pats isolated from the rest of
the code. This will ease porting if/when you need to and generally also
lead to a better program structure.
Thanks Flash and Keith

--
Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird
Sep 3 '06 #70

P: n/a
Jonathan Pritchard wrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
>Jonathan Pritchard <jo**********@f2s.comwrote:
>>Out of which of the Microsoft Visual C++ range would anyone
recommend? I've been using Dev-C++, but I'd like code completion and
I guess I want to see what a commercial IDE looks like.

Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

Richard

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.
Are you using release candidate 2 of Code::Blocks? If so, I highly
recommend you download the latest nightly build from their website.
It's light years better than the release candidate, and I think they
fixed the problem you're concerned with. I seem to remember just
opening up a simple C program source file, and it built and ran just
fine without a project.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack G. Atkinson Jr.
jg*******@gmail.com
Psa 104:4 He makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flaming fire.
Luke 12:36-47 - Be ready!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep 4 '06 #71

70 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.