User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
C::B usage/download stats?
Wyrm:
Thomas: Thanks for the debugger!
Regarding the use counts, it's a good idea to use the popularity contests indeed. While the contest numbers are hard to scale to the absolute number of users, relative comparison between IDE's is rather interesting.
On Ubuntu pop contest website (http://popcon.ubuntu.com/) C::B is barely above KDevelop in usage and is far ahead of Eclipse CDT.
On Debian pop contest website (http://popcon.debian.org/) C::B has just barely overtook Eclipse CDT but stays about 2X behind KDevelop.
An interesting graph is the recent spike in the number of users in the Debian pop contest, see the bright red curve marked with + below. I won't post other IDE graphs to avoid starting flame wars but they don't seem to have such an explosive growth. Seems like your users like having official releases. :)
p2rkw:
On debian most popular IDE is geany: http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=geany
Heres another interesting graph about codeblocks: http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=codeblocks&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&show_old=on&show_recent=on&show_nofiles=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2012-01-01&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1
macr0t0r:
--- Quote from: Wyrm on May 22, 2013, 07:16:45 am --- I won't post other IDE graphs to avoid starting flame wars but they don't seem to have such an explosive growth. Seems like your users like having official releases. :)
--- End quote ---
Here at Lockheed, we are only allowed to install official releases. I thought we were going to have to put Code::Blocks to bed and start moving our projects to Eclipse (10.05 debugger does not work with current GCC). Obviously, I'll need to start getting more vocal in the forums in the hopes of getting more timely updates in the future.
In any case, I'm glad to see that Code::Blocks still has a healthy user-base. It's a bit more barebones compared to the likes of Netbeans, but the scripting engine is indispensable since it allows us to easily create plugins that any user can install on the fly. Keep up the good work!
- Jim
Wyrm:
If I understand it correctly, geany is a multi-language IDE. Perl/Python developers are not C::B's target market. That's why I referenced Eclipse CDT rather than full Eclipse.
That said, those IDE's are also very good for their purposes. Some 5 years ago I was frustrated with crashes in KDevelop when I loaded a large project (thousands of files). So I haven't tried it since then. I hope it improved over the last few years.
Eclipse CDT was giving me a lot of hard time in mixed linking (partially static, partially dynamic). This is a really basic feature in C++ because some libraries (system, libstdc++, libpthread) are intended to be used mostly dynamically, while other dependent libraries should be static if your users don't have them in standard repositories. No matter how much they try to transform Eclipse into a C++ IDE, it is just not friendly for C++ development. It may be perfect for Java. On the other hand, in C::B I open project options and all compiler/linker tabs are right there with the configurable library order (append/prepend). You can immediately see that people who designed it understand the thinking process of a C++ developer.
I have just tried Geany as well. It doesn't allow you to place 2 tabs side by side. So half of the space on a widescreen monitor is wasted. In C++ you want to see a class header and its implementation side by side. I remember C::B supported it since version 10.
Another feature in C::B that I value very high: custom makefiles. This feature is indispensable when you evaluate other people's projects. Generally, I want to step through the code in the debugger to see what the code is doing. However, it is not my project and I'm not going to spend my time creating specialized project files for it *before* I've evaluated it and decided to commit my resources. Most projects support gmake and standard makefiles. So you can simply hook up your top level Makefile in C::B and build the project. Then, if you find the code useful it is worth going over and creating project files for whatever IDE you use.
The above may be a biased description but I did give a fair chance to several IDE's. They are mostly good but haven't fully met my expectations. Maybe I'm just too demanding.
--- Quote from: macr0t0r on May 24, 2013, 07:55:13 am ---I thought we were going to have to put Code::Blocks to bed and start moving our projects to Eclipse (10.05 debugger does not work with current GCC).
--- End quote ---
If I remember correctly, version 10 didn't fully work with GDB. I posted here a couple of years ago and some C::B developer (goes by name Obfuscated) helped me install a special branch that had latest debugger fixes and features. I believe they've fully merged it into version 12. C::B developers will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm now on GCC 4.7.2 and GDB 7.5 and everything works smoothly. However, I do need to mention that I have a bad habit of compiling C::B for my system from sources, rather than using precompiled binaries.
macr0t0r:
Yes, version 10 did not have a really solid debugger plugin yet. That's why I got excited that 12.11 was (finally...FINALLY!) released so that I could request an update for our servers.
I love Code::Blocks for its flexibility. Lockheed is full of legacy software with crazy makefiles, and Code::Blocks was the only IDE that I could easily import those projects into and still be able to use the parse/build/debugger functionality. Seeing that the scripting engine has been revamped quite a bit, I'm working on improving a few of our plugins.
Off topic: the scripting documentation is....sparse (to be generous). I generally had to look at the source code to understand the nuances. However, like all open-source software, I know that the obvious answer is for me to update it if I don't like it. Ugh...I'll have to carve some free-time out to update your scripting wiki.
- Jim
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version