User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)

Why CB over V2005express, etc.

(1/4) > >>

Phantoms:
On another forums, I was recommended by several users to use MS VisualC++ 2005 express and I asked the question there, Why VC instead of CB. 

So now I'm asking here, why CB over VC?

I will give away my decision before anyone answers (please don't let this taint your answers).

I used VC++ 2005 express for a week after many suggestions and decided to stick with CodeBlocks. Let me say I'm a beginner and learning C++ (a hard language to learn).

Later on, VC++ may be a better choice, but for someone learning C++, CodeBlocks is much better suited. Start a new project, select console and a file name and you're all set. VC++ produces several support files, etc. for the same simple project you're working on in CB that only includes what you ask it too.

stahta01:
I myself do not use debugger very often, so the more, reported as, integrated GUI debugger is one reason to use the IDE & Compiler MSVC++ instead of the IDE Code::Blocks and Compiler MSVC++. Which compiler to use with Code::Blocks depends on many things, the platforms and libraries you are planning to use and support. I normally use C::B to compile open source projects; so, I use MinGW GCC as my compiler. I hope to switch to Linux in the near future and that is the main reason I am using Code::Blocks as my IDE.

FYI, I am doing the open source projects to improve my C++ programming skills.

Tim S

thomas:
For me, the main reasons why I use Code::Blocks are

* It's pretty cool being able to modify the IDE one is using.
* GCC is a great compiler, and Code::Blocks is made for GCC.
* It's cool that Code::Blocks runs on Linux, too. I'm not using that feature, but the point is, I could, if I wanted to.
* Money. They charge me 799 dollars for a (more or less) usable version of Visual Studio, while giving it out for free in India. No thank you.
* I would need a computer with more RAM and more CPU cores to run Visual Studio. While poverty is not really a problem as such, I simply don't see the need.
* Refusal to support the monopolism of proprietary, undisclosed, undocumented, unsophisticated, unfree, un-anything standards. It's bad enough having to use Windows due to lack of alternatives.

Jan van den Borst:
I agree with Thomas.

I want to add that it is fairly simple to copy an existing compiler and make support for a new one (and use the outstanding CB build engine) That is what I did for an embedded project that uses ARM realview compiler.

Also the editor is great and I find myself switching from MSVC to codeblocks just for editing my files and beautify them with Astyle.

Jan

Biplab:

--- Quote from: thomas on October 18, 2007, 11:15:09 am ---
* Money. They charge me 799 dollars for a (more or less) usable version of Visual Studio, while giving it out for free in India. No thank you.
--- End quote ---

No they don't give MSVS for free in India. The worst thing is they charge nearly same amount in local currency. So if you are paying $799, an Indian buyer would pay around Rs.20,000 (approx) for a Standard Edition license. :)

Consider the fact that an average programmer in India gets about $500-700 per month as salary whereas any US/EU counterpart gets a lot more than that.

But I agree with your other points. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page