Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

the Font of codeblocks which i build looks too ugly

<< < (2/3) > >>

Lev:

--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on May 09, 2015, 09:55:12 am ---
--- Quote from: Lev on May 09, 2015, 03:47:26 am ---I just want to use the 64bit cb!

--- End quote ---
Why? Is there any practical reason for this desire?
C::B rarely uses more than 200-300mb of memory.


--- Quote from: Lev on May 09, 2015, 03:52:22 am ---so you mean I can solve this problem with wx2.8?But i can't find  CodeBlocks_wx28_32.cbp in the project

--- End quote ---
The default Codeblocks.cbp file is setup for wx28. The wx30 projects are experimental at the moment, because the porting to wx30 is an on going project.

--- End quote ---

Because it's said that the 64bit applications  run faster! It will cost me less time to  launch the 64bit CB!

gd_on:

--- Quote ---Because it's said that the 64bit applications  run faster! It will cost me less time to  launch the 64bit CB!
--- End quote ---
Generally speaking, it's true, but for C::B, it's not so evident.
I compile myself C::B, both as a 32 bits application and 64 bit application, both with wxWidgets 2.8.12 (compiled also in 32 or 64 bits of course, even if some people say that wxWidgets 2.8.12 is not 64 bit fully compatible. As I said, I'm probably lucky :D because I never met a problem with that, but may be one day ...).
I can say that there are no real differences with those two C::B versions. I tried to make sevaral time mesurements, to see if C::B 64 bit is more rapid than C::B in 32 bits, if the launch time, or the load time for big projects is better or not, and my conclusion, is that I don't really see differences : Sometimes 64 bits is faster, sometimes it's the contrary.
Don't forget also that you can developp 64 bits applications even with C::B compiled in 32 bits. Don't forget also that C::B is an IDE, not the compiler (but it needs one !).

gd-on

scarphin:
64-bit cb compiled with wx2.8.12 starts up ~2 secs faster than 32-bit, at least for me and I haven't noticed any extra slowness on any other part. For the time I've been using the 64-bit build (a couple of months as of now), I've experienced only 1-2 random crashes which is not more than the official nightlies. I'm using 'o3' optimization and a patched wx2.8.12 though.

thomas:
Two seconds faster? It shouldn't even take two seconds at all.

You can gain much more both in startup time and overall speed if you remove all the junk that comes with Code::Blocks which you don't ever use. Unluckily, as a software grows and matures, the cruft that comes with it grows, too. Code::Blocks is not one of the worst offenders (Microsoft Office, Windows, and Firefox come to mind) but it is not immune to that effect either.

Compiling in 64 bits gets you close to zero benefit, but it causes some obscure problems (works 98% of the time, crashes 1% of the time, corrupts data 1% of the time) with wxWidgets 2.8 due to stuff like passing pointers as integers and the like internally.

Disable or uninstall a dozen plugins that do nothing useful, or 35 lexers for languages that you do not use (and some of which you've probably not even heard of). There's about 50 new project templates for languages and toolkits that you likely don't use (those aren't loaded at startup, but they still make your everyday workflow slower by needlessly offering you options that you are never going to want and forcing you to scroll to find the ones you need).
Have you ever written a program in Hitachi ASM? Do you program in Cg and write LaTEX documents with Code::Blocks? Seriously? Verilog? How many times per year do you need an XP Manifest created? Do you write programs with wxWidgets at all (if no, what do you need wxSmith for)?

Why do you have Code::Blocks load these files every time it starts up?

Do you regularly start projects that use SFML and SDL at the same time (or Ogre and Irrlicht at the same time), and you write programs in native OpenGL and DirectX and using GLFW too, all at the same time? Sometimes, many choices are good, but sometimes they're not.

scarphin:

--- Quote from: thomas on May 12, 2015, 10:08:48 am ---Two seconds faster? It shouldn't even take two seconds at all.

--- End quote ---
Unfortunately it's my ancient computer.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page