I hope Code::Blocks IDE with MINGW compiler can also release version 1.0-RC1-1

[rickg22]

Perhaps we should make a Wiki on installation, then.

[thomas]

Besides, if we talk about MinGW for example, its not really newbie-friendly when it comes to explain what packages should you download...

Lol, yes. Quite frightening the first time. What if the installer included an option to download and install the compiler?
I know zero about Inno setup, but NSIS can download files off the internet on request, and I guess Inno is not worse in its functionality. So if the user wants to install a compiler, he could just tell the installer to download and unpack it.
The installer could then for example download http://www.codeblocks/mingw-core.php and that URL could send back a HTTP/302 pointing to whatever is the current version over at MinGW. That way it would be zero-config for the user, nothing to worry about once the installer script has been modified, and forever easy to maintain, too.

EDIT:
Actually, the redirect could be put into .htaccess, too, way easier than php....

[Urxae]

There are some problems I can think of with having the installer download the compiler:

• If someone wants to install on multiple machines, the compiler will have to be downloaded all over again each time.
• If the installer is run on another machine than where it's downloaded from, and that machine doesn't have internet access, it doesn't work.
• If, for whatever reason, the Code::Blocks site is down nobody can install the compiler.

I like it fine the way it's now: two installers, one with compiler and one without.

[tiwag]

I like it fine the way it's now: two installers, one with compiler and one without.

second that

[takeshimiya]

And better yet multiple options:

-C::B standalone
-C::B+MinGW (all in one package)
-C::B+Digital Mars+stlport (all in one package)
-C::B+VCTK+MS Platform SDK (C::B included, VCTK and Platform autodownloaded from Microsoft OR manually downloaded but auto installed from a script inside the C::B installer)

I guess the first 3 options don't have any license problems, and the 4th option I think that would help us A LOT to stop seeing people saying "nothing compiles!" and then someone replying "you must have the platform sdk" :lol:

I think that the 4th option also would attract a lot of users from the big MSVC land, because you'll have a drop-in one-clic MSVC replacement. And more now taking in account that the C::B MSVC importer is being constantly improved.

Then any former MS developer could go back and forth between MSVC and C::B.
Then a lot of people will discover this great IDE.
Then a lot of people will discover other great compilers.
Then a lot of people will be using GCC/Any other multiplatform/opensource Compiler.
Then a lot of people will be writting multiplatform code (thanks to the multiplatform Compiler, the multiplatform IDE, and the multiplatform widgets library).
Then a lot of people will be interested in the opensource world.
Then a lot of people... <insert your wish here  >

What do you think?

[rickg22]

Then a lot of people... <insert your wish here  >

Then a lot of people from Microsoft would sue us! :shock:

I'm sorry, I don't think MS would let us get away with it by bundling their product with our competition.

[takeshimiya]

Maybe you misreaded it, but I'm saying NOT to bundle, but instead
autodownloaded from Microsoft OR manually downloaded but auto installed from a script inside the C::B installer

I don't think that breaks any license, a script to download the compiler (asking to the user first),
Or in the worst case, all the steps well explained of were to download and how to install the compiler, in the installer.

But again, I don't think a download script breaks any EULA (any with more experience on the legal part of this?)

[grv575]

Also note that to get a fully working (minus multithreading msvcprt.lib library) free VC replacement you will probably need:
.NET 1.1 SDK (for msvcrt.lib)