Irrlicht Engine

EASY GUYS!!!

@ Alpha Omega... you didn't understand... i said It is hard to set up GCC to work with MSVC and the MSVC is bloated.

@wildrj... i think you are right in part, because of course if you learn how to program using VA it will be difficult to program without it. However, in my case i already know how to program, it's just a matter of programming speed and precision.
And a MSVC is widely used in development industry, i don't know if an autocompletion plugin will make any difference, as long as you have the license to install it on your developing machine. Also, i suspect some companies already have it installed on their machines because VA is very popular.

@Sylence: 2x faster?


VA is great but the main difference (to me) is the precision, i'll never have typo issues and will never need to search for a include name manually again; VA indexed them all to me so i just need to type their first letters .

The programming speed difference is minimal to me, something like 1.1x faster.

MSVC is good, but a super-autocompletion and a better debugger aren't enough to me... don't worth 400USD IMHO (OK, maybe i'm a little bit poor ). And there's another factor... buying this i'll support MS and i really don't like MS .

Debugger doesn't make that difference to me... i never needed a better debugger. To me, as long as the IDE does everything that i need, the simpler the better.

Code::Blocks does everything i need... it has a RAD gui programming system, it is totally cross-platform, it is simple and user-friendly, it has a nice community, i can run it from a usb flash drive on almost any OS, it is free (as in beer and in freedom).

Of course it's not perfect, i miss a better autocompletion and text highlighting system, and of course MSVC is better overall, but it has so many features that i don't think make THAT difference, there's no "magical" feature, and most of them i'll never use, and i'm 100% sure.

And the best programmers i know, don't even use an IDE, so i don't think is all that important to have the best IDE ever, i think it's better to concentrate on knowledge, and to do that no one needs to pay 400USD .

I use MSVC Express on Windows because it has the best autocompletion and the best debugger. code::blocks is getting better, but its interface to gdb is naff compared to Microsoft's debugger. A good debugger is the most important development tool because you spend most of your time debugging. When trying to understand program execution, the difference between 10 seconds and 2 minutes is a lot.

I would prefer to use a free software IDE, but philosophy and politics shouldn't get in the way of getting the job done. MSVC is better at getting the job done, so that's what I use.

I'm not a 'big' pro, but i program very well, i never had any big issue debugging my programs, 99% of my "errors" are fixed quickly and easily, just using the C::B visual feedback, other part don't represent that amount of time, so it's just okay.

I never programmed nothing very complex though, the most complex thing was a 100k lines data base system.

bitplane wrote:I use MSVC Express on Windows because it has the best autocompletion and the best debugger. code::blocks is getting better, but its interface to gdb is naff compared to Microsoft's debugger. A good debugger is the most important development tool because you spend most of your time debugging. When trying to understand program execution, the difference between 10 seconds and 2 minutes is a lot.

I would prefer to use a free software IDE, but philosophy and politics shouldn't get in the way of getting the job done. MSVC is better at getting the job done, so that's what I use.

gdb is getting some nice love. they are adding full python support which is going to make debugging c++ with gdb pretty nice soon. it will give us full stl support. keep an eye out in the coming months.

I'm not a 'big' pro, but i program very well, i never had any big issue debugging my programs, 99% of my "errors" are fixed quickly and easily

Saying things like this is all we need to see what your skill levels are, lol.

Man! I can't build Qt!

I followed the tutorial and i'm compiling using the MSVC terminal to run the programs provided by Qt... this is the last console framebuffer:
Should i try to fix it? I think it would be ready to run =/

BTW...

Is it possible to program the entire app using MSVC taking advantage of debugging and VA, and then compile it on C::B (GCC) easily?

I plan to use MSVC just to code, debug and design Qt GUI, and compile the final version on C::B, mainly to avoid those annoying MSVC dependencies problems, and also to make sure it will be compatible with Linux.

I need to make Linux-compatible code because i program 99% for Linux (and 1% for Solaris, Windows apps are only experimental or non-commercial). I know almost no-one uses Linux .

Is there a "build-and-run" option on MSVC?

Thanks guys.

FuzzYspo0N wrote:Saying things like this is all we need to see what your skill levels are, lol.

I didn't understand what you mean... I'm not a native anglish speaker, so sorry if i said anything wrong.

You'll never get hired if you admit to using VA? Bullshit... Unless you think EA doesn't count, since every programmer at EA gets it installed with MSVS when they set you up... Also, it's probably the best add-on I saw for any IDE to date. It doesn't just auto-complete, learn to use it.

I liked MSVC because of its features and how fast it was. I however now use wxDev-CPP.

@Sylence, @strong99: yes, I know that the version errors can be fixed and that .net can be disabled. Searched the internet and tried for a day or so, then I just switched back to code::blocks because there I simply compile my program and it runs, and I do not have to do some major changes in the settings of the project. That's what I want.

The gdb is good enough for me, I am always able to find my errors using it. The auto-completion is a nice feature, but (for me) not enough to switch.

One remark: here at work (I am programming for one of the leading software companies in the printing industry) we are using a development environment that I don't think most of you would work with: gcc, Insight interface for the gdb (or the gdb on a console, depending on the developer) and Notepad++ (or vi, depending on the developer). We get our software done with this, and I don't think that we are that slow. In our situation we don't have an alternative to the gcc. We need to compile most of the stuff for Windows, Linux and MacOSX, and a large part is written in Objective-C. Does VC support Obj-C? I don't think so. Furthermore with gcc we can push the compiler into the direction we need it to be (e.g. 64Bit support and Objective-C), because it is developed by the net-community.

Brainsaw wrote:@Sylence, @strong99: yes, I know that the version errors can be fixed and that .net can be disabled. Searched the internet and tried for a day or so, then I just switched back to code::blocks because there I simply compile my program and it runs, and I do not have to do some major changes in the settings of the project. That's what I want.

Actually it takes one or two minutes at most to configure the project to links the runtime static and exclude any sign of the .NET framework.

Oh and of course you only need this if you want to release your apps. A VS can also be compiled and it runs without any changes. On your computer that is what matters most during development.

Brainsaw wrote: The gdb is good enough for me, I am always able to find my errors using it. The auto-completion is a nice feature, but (for me) not enough to switch.

The VS debugger offers more comfort, but if you are ok with the gdb then it's ok.

Brainsaw wrote: One remark: here at work (I am programming for one of the leading software companies in the printing industry) we are using a development environment that I don't think most of you would work with: gcc, Insight interface for the gdb (or the gdb on a console, depending on the developer) and Notepad++ (or vi, depending on the developer). We get our software done with this, and I don't think that we are that slow. In our situation we don't have an alternative to the gcc. We need to compile most of the stuff for Windows, Linux and MacOSX, and a large part is written in Objective-C. Does VC support Obj-C? I don't think so. Furthermore with gcc we can push the compiler into the direction we need it to be (e.g. 64Bit support and Objective-C), because it is developed by the net-community.

Nobody ever said that VS is the non plus ultra sulotion in every imaginable scenario. Of course there are situations when VS won't help you at all.

bitplane wrote:I would prefer to use a free software IDE, but philosophy and politics shouldn't get in the way of getting the job done.

I share the same opinion.

Brainsaw wrote:...I just switched back to code::blocks because there I simply compile my program and it runs, ...

The gdb is good enough for me, I am always able to find my errors using it.

The GDB is good enough for me too... however i loved the "on-the-fly" debugging on MSVC, very precise. The main missing feature on GDB imho is something similar... the errors at compile-time are very precise, i don't need anything better, the problem is when a program builds well but crashes at runtime; it depends on a lot of factors, but it's generally very hard to fix these problems.

Also, i'm almost giving up on VS because i'm still trying to set up Qt and the thing just don't work... I tried 4 tutorials and none of them helped.

Can someone point me to a tutorial that actually works? I can't even compile the thing.

Thanks

Well setting up Qt isn't a big deal.

Basicly it is just
- Open the Visual Studi Command prompt
- Run the configure.exe in the qt directory
- type nmake
- wait (this is a good time to look through the tutorials since compilation can take one or two hours depending on the system)
- finish

Sylence wrote:Well setting up Qt isn't a big deal.

Basicly it is just
- Open the Visual Studi Command prompt
- Run the configure.exe in the qt directory
- type nmake
- wait (this is a good time to look through the tutorials since compilation can take one or two hours depending on the system)
- finish

That's exactly what i did, but nmake returns me an error (after several minutes).

Anyways... i'm seriously thinking about buying MSVC+VA, but i don't know if worth to buy now or if it's better to wait a little longer to buy MSVC 2010. I have time to decide because i want to test it a lot before... and i couldn't even make a first gui program .

Thank you Sylence.

Yes I would wait for VS 2010.

Have you checked the Qt forums if anyone else has similar problems?