A couple of months ago there was a release where the program would close unexpectedly. It was discussed in this forum and several people were having the problem. It lasted for several weeks.
Although I don't recall any *serious* issue lasting more than a day or two, it all comes down to what each one defines as "stable".
For example, we 've had issues in the past with code-completion's parser. I don't consider them fatal though (same goes for any other plugin that may have issues). The only exceptions to this are the compiler (mainly) and debugger plugins. All other plugins cannot label a nightly build as "fatal" no matter how bad they 're behaving. And the reason is simple: a plugin can easily be disabled. End of story.
Every counter-argument about that is just made just for the sake of it. Things are simple. As long as the compiler and debugger plugins work without causing problems, then C::B can be considered stable.
And before someone misinterprets my words, I 'm not saying we don't care about plugins. On the contrary I 'd say. But having to live without a specific plugin for a day or two, doesn't actually make C::B unstable. Just maybe a little less productive (depending on the plugin). That's my whole point.
You cannot solve someone's problem by explaining it away or denying its existence. Everyone's experience does not mimic your own.
There's no "denial of problem" in the above statements. Yes, bugs do exist and always will. It's the inevitable fact of programming. But we try to fix them and we are fast when responding to serious bugs.
And finally, let me quote the OP:
I personally don't like the idea of having to use a nightly build because I expect it to be full of bugs or errors/memory leaks.
Nightly builds are not "full of bugs or errors/memory leaks". That's not denial, that's a fact. Or else I wouldn't be able to program with C::B for 12-14 hours a day.
Unless any of you has reasons to believe that C::B behaves well to me just because I 'm its "daddy" :lol:.
