NO

Author Topic: "Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles  (Read 5253 times)

FOX

  • Guest
"Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« on: April 11, 2006, 04:09:25 pm »
Hi,

The title of this topic is because yesterday in another forum i was saying:
(I only work with C, i don't care about C++ o C#)

Quote
Hi,

I don't know if anyone could find this useful but here's:

http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

I really hate the Dev-Cpp IDE, so, three or four months ago i found this compiler (and also have an excellent ide and an excellent debugger!).

If anyone knows another c compiler for the win32 platform just let me know.

=)


And then another user says (at the bottom):

Quote
Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles C.


So, why this people is calling them self programmers?
They preffer a poor IDE with a really slow compiler and a poor debugger too. And they always say "C++, yeah, C++, yeah.... and C++".

I don't know but... his mother gives him a computer for xmas?

Long life to PellesC! =)

kobold

  • Guest
"Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2006, 09:36:09 pm »
Be happy, that such kiddies are not using PellesC - this keeps this forum clean  :wink:

And by the way:
Quote
Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles C.

PellesC is a C only IDE, DevCpp is able to do both, C & C++ (more or less good :wink: )

ivanhv

  • Guest
"Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2006, 07:09:16 pm »
I agree with the assert:

"Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles C"

It's reasonable: Pelles C is not a C++ tool and Dev-Cpp is...

Now, my own assertion:

"A keyboard is infinitely better as a programming tool than a toaster"


You asked for another compiler:

In past times, I were using Lcc-Win32 a lot. It's also LCC based, but doesn't support ARM compiling and it's IDE were a little inferior quality. I think Pelles C is a bit better.

At the other side, LCC-Win32 is recently introducing STRINGLIB.LIB (with its sources), that is a great library for working with strings, ressemblant to that strings on .NET that profits from Garbage Collector. I had partial success on compiling GC with Pelles C (it worked on x86 but not on ARM) and I think StringLib is compilable as it is with Pelles C, so that's not a big advantage on using LCC-Win32 anyway.

Dev-Cpp is great. I love it. IDE sucks (has no form designer and some features has bugs), but update system is great and there're a lot of libraries prepared for that system. As it integrates an stable and preconfigured GNU compiler, it allows you to program C++ (and GNU's maybe the more standards compliant C++ compiler). I switched my attention into Pelles C just by two reasons:

- I needed a fast, ANSI C99 standard compiler for backprocessing of another language compiler.

- I needed a C compiler able to write bin code for Win32 and PocketPC.

Anyway, Pelles C is one the best programs I've been using since years.

FOX

  • Guest
"Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2006, 10:47:08 pm »
Well, that's right.
But i was mad in that moment.

Anyway...
Long life to PellesC

BlindRose

  • Guest
Re: "Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2009, 09:10:18 am »
A keyboard is always bigger as a programming apparatus than a toaster.



_________________
Toaster

Seltsamuel

  • Guest
Re: "Devcpp is infinitely better as a C++ tool than Pelles
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2009, 12:18:54 pm »
Hi,

c != c++ and thats good this way ;-)

@ivanhv
Maybe you want to take a look at WxDevC++ http://wxdsgn.sourceforge.net/
It has all good features of the base DevC++ but is in verry active development and has many missing features.

PellesC is a great IDE and Compiler i really like it even when i have to struggle for any open source Prog and lib i want to use with it.
Maybe we should build a database here with any successfull ported Tool and Lib for PellesC.

The only reason i came to PellesC some time back was the support for __declspec(naked) which isnt supported in any other FREE Compiler maybe one of the biggest disappointings in connection with gcc because they know about it and COULD support it not doing it because its against their religion of coding. Reminds me a little bit about forcing into religions ^^

Greetings

Seltsamuel