Code::Blocks vs. Visual Studio

[pghtech]

I posted a similar topic were I was able to get some colorful adjectives for what people thought of Code::Blocks.  However, I am just starting to use Code::Blocks, but have been using a couple different version of VC (6 and 2005express).  So, I have been considering whether or not I should drop the $250 odd dollars for the standard or.....see howthe community of Code::Blocks stacks it against VC 2005 before dropping that money?

Thanks in advance

[sethjackson]

I posted a similar topic were I was able to get some colorful adjectives for what people thought of Code::Blocks.  However, I am just starting to use Code::Blocks, but have been using a couple different version of VC (6 and 2005express).  So, I have been considering whether or not I should drop the $250 odd dollars for the standard or.....see howthe community of Code::Blocks stacks it against VC 2005 before dropping that money?

Thanks in advance

Umm you want an IDE camparision? I don't think you can get VS for $250???  :shock:

Why use a non-cross platform, bloated, slow IDE when you can use Code::Blocks (which is none of those)?

[pghtech]

SethJackson:
Thanks for the repy:  I am pretty sure you can pick up the (non-academic, *full version*) standard edition for ~$250 give or take a few dollars - maybe your thinking of the professional edition which starts getting closer to $600.

[sethjackson]

SethJackson:
Thanks for the repy:  I am pretty sure you can pick up the (non-academic, *full version*) standard edition for ~$250 give or take a few dollars - maybe your thinking of the professional edition which starts getting closer to $600.

Ah ok yes I was.

Anyways what does VS do better?
I can think of one off the top of my head. Mainly Intellisense (code-completion).
Why would you want to use VS over Code::Blocks?

[pghtech]

Only because I am familar with it, and was planning on doing so until I started looking into Code::Blocks.

[sethjackson]

Only because I am familar with it, and was planning on doing so until I started looking into Code::Blocks.

Oh well then download a nightly build, and see how you like Code::Blocks.

[kidmosey]

A few things you might miss (for a little while) when you switch over to C::B from VS:

1.  VS style document switching - using ctrl+tab to switch to the last document is a pretty nice feature.
2.  Incremental builds - it seemed like VS was faster for compiling.  This is more an issue with gcc, maybe.
3.  Code completion - For now, C::B has a ways to go to fix this.
4.  Low maintainence - Personally, I rarely had to work around a compiler/linker problem and experienced very few crashes.  I am sure once RC3 is out, C::B will be the same, though.
5.  Easy installation - If you are new, installing mingw, C::B, and wxWidgets can be a pain... but well worth it.

I can't think of anything else, atm.  Honestly, it is worth using C::B over VS, even considering the above "problems".  It is smaller, faster (the interface), cross-platform, extensible, non-bloated, FREE, and a number of other adjectives.  After 5 years of using Visual Studio, C::B is a breath of fresh air.

[L_O_J]

A few things you might miss (for a little while) when you switch over to C::B from VS:

1.  VS style document switching - using ctrl+tab to switch to the last document is a pretty nice feature.
2.  Incremental builds - it seemed like VS was faster for compiling.  This is more an issue with gcc, maybe.
3.  Code completion - For now, C::B has a ways to go to fix this.
4.  Low maintainence - Personally, I rarely had to work around a compiler/linker problem and experienced very few crashes.  I am sure once RC3 is out, C::B will be the same, though.
5.  Easy installation - If you are new, installing mingw, C::B, and wxWidgets can be a pain... but well worth it.

I agree with the above quote, but if you ask me, what I will really miss VisualAssistX, I mean if I have to choose between VS only and C::B I will choose C::B, BUT if VisualAssistX is added, then (sorry) I will choose VS + VisualAssistX. oh on thing that the above should also mention is debugging. IMHO C::B is still not as comfortable as VS in debugging.

[Phatency]

With the latest work on the debugger, I would never go back to Visual Studio (IDE). And the compile speed issue is more of an issue of MinGW, not gcc. To my experience, there isn't any noticeable difference between using Microsoft Visual C++ compiler on Visual Studio or Code::Blocks.

[Zingam]

There are quite a lot of things that VS does better and one is the way it handles projects/solutions. I really prefer it over what C::B has but CB is nice and I like it. Something that C::B really sucks at is the Find/Replace dialog. I really wonder why the devs don't want to improve it.

BTW how can one add other compilers to C::B?

On Linux C::B keeps on crashing since the very beginning. I've tried it on different Ubuntu versions \and installations - of course\ on my laptop and it has always crashed. It is actually unusable on Linux on my computer.

 :shock:Why?

[Kreso]

I have to disagree, C::B works perfectly on linux. I compile each SVN trunk version myself and have never experienced odd problems (execpt ofcourse bugs that happen during development, but this is an unstable branch

I've used VC for a long time, but after finding C::B I don't think I'll ever go back. Ok, I'll have to wait a bit for C::B to get more stable and usable (Codecompletion,debugging), but even in the current state, I use it every day for our project.

Keep up the good work guys!!!

[Commodore64]

On Linux C::B keeps on crashing since the very beginning. I've tried it on different Ubuntu versions \and installations - of course\ on my laptop and it has always crashed. It is actually unusable on Linux on my computer.

 :shock:Why?

Did you try to disable code completion plugin?

[sethjackson]

Something that C::B really sucks at is the Find/Replace dialog. I really wonder why the devs don't want to improve it.

(emphasis added)

What makes you think that?  :shock:
The devs are always looking for ways to improve the IDE.
First this isn't a high priority (check the roadmap).
Second is the devs do this for free, and in their spare time.

Hey patches are welcome.

[MortenMacFly]

Something that C::B really sucks at is the Find/Replace dialog.

Nice you don't tell us what exactly sucks. I use these dialogs in everydays work and I don't see anything "sucking". Mind to explain yourself a little more next time?
With regards, Morten.

[lubos]

i think c::b is better than vs2005
for me miss only one thing - can't "auto-hide" project explorer as in vs(can you do that :lol:)

[sethjackson]

i think c::b is better than vs2005
for me miss only one thing - can't "auto-hide" project explorer as in vs(can you do that :lol:)

Auto hide project explorer? How does that work? I don't know I don't use VS......

[rcoll]

The auto-hide function is actually rather annoying.  Basically, if a window has not
been touched for 'n' seconds, it shrinks itself out-of-sight.

Personally, when I open a window, I want it to *stay* open.  *I* will decide when
I want to hide it.

Cheers,
Ron

[sethjackson]

The auto-hide function is actually rather annoying.  Basically, if a window has not
been touched for 'n' seconds, it shrinks itself out-of-sight.

Personally, when I open a window, I want it to *stay* open.  *I* will decide when
I want to hide it.

Cheers,
Ron

Well of course if it got added to C::B, there could always be an option for this. Like the auto-hide message pane option.

[lubos]

The auto-hide function is actually rather annoying.  Basically, if a window has not
been touched for 'n' seconds, it shrinks itself out-of-sight.

Personally, when I open a window, I want it to *stay* open.  *I* will decide when
I want to hide it.

Cheers,
Ron

ye but i want to stay it open only for while when i listing project files and then want to have more editor's space  :lol:

[rcoll]

Isn't that what the "minimize" button is for?

-- Ron --

[sethjackson]

The auto-hide function is actually rather annoying.  Basically, if a window has not
been touched for 'n' seconds, it shrinks itself out-of-sight.

Personally, when I open a window, I want it to *stay* open.  *I* will decide when
I want to hide it.

Cheers,
Ron

ye but i want to stay it open only for while when i listing project files and then want to have more editor's space  :lol:

You can close the management pane ya know.

[lubos]

you mean "x" button? not too comfortable for me  :lol:

[mandrav]

Try Shift-F2...

[lubos]

Try Shift-F2...

nice    but open files list is still opened so i probably kick him

[rcoll]

OK, it's seems we've started a religious war.  (Is there any other kind?) 

And speaking of religion ... I've been fooling with this "post" editor, and I can't
figure out how to quote a previous poster.  Is there a "reply with quote" buttone
I'm not seeing?

Thanks,
Ron

[sethjackson]

Up above your post there is a quote button.

Also when you use the post editor scroll down the page, and hit insert quote.

EDIT:

I beat mandrav.  :lol:

[mandrav]

And speaking of religion ... I've been fooling with this "post" editor, and I can't
figure out how to quote a previous poster.  Is there a "reply with quote" buttone
I'm not seeing?

There is a "quote" button above each post.
If you 're talking about the "Quick reply" text box at the bottom of the page, if you open it then you can click the "quote" in any message and it will quote it automatically.

[rcoll]

Up above your post there is a quote button.

Also when you use the post editor scroll down the page, and hit insert quote.

Outstanding!  Thanks for the tip; I had my screen colors set so that it was difficult
to see these, but now that I know they are there, it is easy to find.

Thanks,
Ron

[lubos]

OK, it's seems we've started a religious war.  (Is there any other kind?) 

no no i like you(heh not love you)  :lol:

[kidmosey]

Something that C::B really sucks at is the Find/Replace dialog. I really wonder why the devs don't want to improve it.

I didn't really see how VS was so powerful with their find/replace, but maybe I didn't use it enough.

And I also don't see what is so bad about the C::B find/replace.  AFAIK, VS doesn't support regex patterns

[bigbug]

I use these dialogs in everydays work and I don't see anything "sucking".

e. g. they suck focus i. e. they're modal, so you cannot copy and paste code into them without closing them. Also I didn't find out, how to do a non-greedy search with regular-expressions. Normally (in Perl) the questionmark makes the quantifiers non-greedy. In the VS-Search you can use regex-patterns, but some tokens are different (than in Perl). For example to find everything from the first i to the first (non-greedy) t in a line, you say i.@t instead of (in Perl) i.*?t The wxWidgets-Documentation says, to make a quantifier non-greedy, you have to use (like in Perl) the questionmark, but it doesn't seem to work in C::B.

[marfig]

I don't think it's fair for C::B to compare it with VS2005. Even if the opinion is that C::B is better.

I personally don't think C::B is better. I think it has the potential to become better because it is a community effort. It already does some things better than VS 2005. But it lacks on many others.

I don't think we can honestly say C::B is better than VS2005. And that will not diminish C::B in any way. C::B is not a finished product, has not been developed with a multi-million dollar budget, and has no hurry to go anywhere.

However, it can go far. Much further than what single compiler products like VS2005 can go.

[ikk]

Also I didn't find out, how to do a non-greedy search with regular-expressions.

for me even brackets doesnt work in regex-es.
for example simple pattern "a" works and "a{1,1}" doesnt, they both mean the same.
its a pity, regexes are cool. maybe in next version 

[JFalcon]

I don't think it's fair for C::B to compare it with VS2005. Even if the opinion is that C::B is better.

I personally don't think C::B is better. I think it has the potential to become better because it is a community effort. It already does some things better than VS 2005. But it lacks on many others.

I don't think we can honestly say C::B is better than VS2005. And that will not diminish C::B in any way. C::B is not a finished product, has not been developed with a multi-million dollar budget, and has no hurry to go anywhere.

However, it can go far. Much further than what single compiler products like VS2005 can go.

Some time ago, I wanted to use Visual Studio 6.0 as my "multi-compiler" platform.  The idea was to replace one of the compiler DLLs with a 'shim' that would instead launch other compilers.  The problem was then dealing with the linker phase of the project.  It seems that in love and war, compilers are the love and it comes to war with the linkers.  The loaders are even more stringent, but that's another story.

Anyhow, if you want to see my old shim code, I found it on Krugle: http://www.krugle.com/files/cvs/cvs.sourceforge.net/moin/cpp-wiki/data/text/VisualStudioCompilerShim

Code::Blocks is one excellent IDE that wraps up the same sentiment I wanted at one time, only with their own IDE.

Regards,

Falcon

[Phatency]

Something that C::B really sucks at is the Find/Replace dialog. I really wonder why the devs don't want to improve it.

I didn't really see how VS was so powerful with their find/replace, but maybe I didn't use it enough.

And I also don't see what is so bad about the C::B find/replace.  AFAIK, VS doesn't support regex patterns

I think the problem is that Codeblocks doesn't leave the find-dialog open after searching. Some people are just used to that. I myself prefer it this way.

[severach]

There are quite a lot of things that VS does better and one is the way it handles projects/solutions.

Solutions yes, projects no. The way that VS handles projects where all the settings are separate is extremely defective. The way Code::Blocks does it with one master and any number of modifiers is far superior.

CB needs multi-compiler projects, something you'll never see in VS.

As for debuggers, they all suck compared to the Pelles-C debugger.