The 23 february 2006 build is out.

[TDragon]

I forgot to mention code completion which I think is still a long way from being very useful.

Maybe the devs should add Code Completion is a Work-In-Progress to the home page and the top of every forum page. Then people might actually realize that code completion is known not to work properly and the devs are aware of it.

[thomas]

Maybe the devs should add Code Completion is a Work-In-Progress to the home page and the top of every forum page.

Or maybe people should read.

It has been said many times (and there are at least two stickies on the forums) that the SVN version as a whole is work in progress and that people have to expect changes, bugs, and incomplete or missing features. The problem is that people don't listen to what you say.

[TDragon]

No kidding.

I was being facetious and more than a little sarcastic.

[yop]

If you want to select a line, move your pointer over the line numbers.

Another bunny out of the hat! This is a scintilla thingy? Really handy

[royalbox]

maybe people should read.

No kidding.

I was being facetious and more than a little sarcastic.

Gosh, the dodgy code completition is a real sore point for you chaps isn't it.

[sethjackson]

maybe people should read.

No kidding.

I was being facetious and more than a little sarcastic.

Gosh, the dodgy code completition is a real sore point for you chaps isn't it.

Nooo..... It is just that people do not read the forums too well. It seems there is a post about code-completion every day asking why this or that doesn't work. These types of questions have been asked and answered 1,000,000,000 times already. All you need to do is search the forum, and you will see that code-completion is a work in progress, and the devs know about 99.99999999% of the bugs that are in it/features "missing".

[royalbox]

@sethjackson
I tend to scim through the forum or search for a keyword I'm interested in before asking a question. On this occasion I was just making a comment about how I like code blocks except for what I see as the one major problem. It wasn't even a question.

Not to worry though, I'll steer well clear of posting next time.

[sethjackson]

@sethjackson
I tend to scim through the forum or search for a keyword I'm interested in before asking a question. On this occasion I was just making a comment about how I like code blocks except for what I see as the one major problem. It wasn't even a question.

Not to worry though, I'll steer well clear of posting next time.

I wan't talking about you..... I was saying why the devs get "touchy" about this topic. No offense to anyone was intended.

[royalbox]

@sethjackson
Sorry, my fault, the last sentence I made in the previous reply was a general comment.

[sethjackson]

@sethjackson
Sorry, my fault, the last sentence I made in the previous reply was a general comment.

Ok. 

[Zingam]

What does a "closed" bug fixed And do you sometimes close bugs when they are not fixed?

[Zingam]

maybe people should read.

No kidding.

I was being facetious and more than a little sarcastic.

Gosh, the dodgy code completition is a real sore point for you chaps isn't it.

Code completion is cool but I belive it should be added in version: 1.5 when all other more important things are done and when the whole IDE works properly as expected, even if some modern fancy features like code completion are missing.

I belive that CB shouldn't strive to become equal to VS with the first version but it should do all editing, project management, compiler support, GUI and all other basic features properly before starting to add more and more advanced features.

I have Visual Studio but for C++ programs I prefer Code::Blocks because it is small, it is fast and it runs under Linux too! If I want code completion so much I could use the monstrous VS and I hope CB never becomes as heavy weight as VS.
(It seems to me that MS always try to make the computers run as fast as at the time when they started on the original IBM PC - only their UI is prettier).

[royalbox]

The code::blocks versioning seems strange to me. I can't understand why it is called a 'release candidate' when it is still having new features added, bugs fixed and layout changed daily, and when one of it's features (code completion) is not anywhere near ready for release. I don't understand why they didn't stick to calling it a beta version until they had a version that they considered ready for release. Or, am I mistaken and the nightly builds are for the next version -- 1.1 or something? I can't see that as RC2 is miles behind the nightly builds. I don't understand the rush to get to 'version 1'. Other apps stay in beta for years until they're considered ready. What's wrong with that?

[Zingam]

Does it actually matter at all?

[thomas]

What does a "closed" bug fixed And do you sometimes close bugs when they are not fixed?

Yes, this happens, for example under the following conditions:
1. None of the devs is able to reproduce the bug throughout several releases. A few releases later, an inquiry whether the problem persists is made and there is no answer (or a negative answer).
2. The report misses significant detail and the developer examining the bug cannot reproduce it. An inquiry for more detail is made, but there is no answer.
3. The program behaves correctly, but the user does something wrong. The user is informed about this, and the report is eventually closed.
4. The user was correct, but the bug report was not processed for some reason, and in the meantime it has become obsolete because the bug was fixed by random chance (some other change). A note is made and the report is closed.
5. The user is being outright ignorant or stupid (or both). The bug it is not a bug at all, possibly the bug report is not even a bug report. The user is given a more or less polite answer (if it's me, then it may be less polite) and the report is closed.

The code::blocks versioning seems strange to me.

Yes, this has been discussed a couple of times in the past.
The problem with versioning is that we released the first RC too early. It only became clear after this that a few things would have to be greatly overhauled before you could call the IDE "usable".
However, once you go to RC, you cannot go back. If we started calling Code::Blocks "beta" again, it would lead to a lot more confusion (pre-RC beta vs. post-RC beta, old RC and new RC). Thus, we left it at that. It is not good, but it is the best we can do now.