-5

i was discussing with a friend of mine about Visual Studio when suddenly another student comes in and says : "I'm using DevC++.. they even made a version for Windows8" having said that he kinda is not really an expert ( not saying that i am ) i answered <> that DevC++ is a really outdated IDE that misses most of the features of modern IDEs such as Visual Studio ( and CB too).

Well i later learned that DevC++ has been updated and is now using an updated version of the Mingw's port of GCC that supports C++11. So.. i couldn't really find any good info on the web about the current status and reliability of DevC++ tha't why i'm asking here.

What's the current status as of 2013 of DevC++ compared to other ( free ) IDEs such as Visual studio or Code::Blocks ? How about the debugger, library linking ( heard that was pretty bad ), intellisense and more ?

Edoardo Dominici
  • 135
  • 2
  • 9
  • It is being "developed", but I still see no reason why would anyone pick that over alternatives. – Bartek Banachewicz Dec 16 '13 at 16:10
  • Is Google down in your part of the world? The new maintainers website is the fifth hit in google. Please research the questions before you post them. – nvoigt Dec 16 '13 at 16:11
  • 1
    Visual Studio being an exception, most IDEs can be configured to use almost any compiler, linker and debugger, so the only relevant metric from those you mentioned is the intellisense – Erbureth Dec 16 '13 at 16:11
  • My biggest issue is the MinGW part. It's fine for writing your own code, but when it comes to building third party libraries, I've suffered weeks of pain getting some common ones to compile. –  Dec 16 '13 at 16:13
  • @polkadotcadaver: I don't see why. GCC has excellent support for C++, and MinGW passes that along. Granted, there have been one or two bugs which are the fault of the GCC project for abusing macros in some places. This pales in comparison to VS's problems, though. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 16:14
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Oh absolutely, in fact GCC is by far my most used compiler, the issues really stem from the build scripts and toolchain support that these libraries provide. –  Dec 16 '13 at 16:15
  • @polkadotcadaver: Indeed. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 16:17
  • @Raxvan: I'm sorry? First of all you don't need plugins to program. At all. Second of all, it _does_ have them, and they are called "packages". Please check your facts with more than a cursory glance before "throwing something out the window" and instructing others to do the same. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 16:18
  • @Lightness Races in Orbit yes, but the question is mostly about the ide not the compiler, am i right ? – Raxvan Dec 16 '13 at 16:19
  • @Lightness Races in Orbit if it does has plugins , then i can't say that it doesn't , i just could not find it listed as a "feature". By plugins i was refrering to extensions that other people made to improve the usage of the IDE. In my opinion there is nothing better on the market than VS 2013 where you have all the plugin support , VisualAssist, PVS-studio, Incredibuild , IncludeManager, StyleManager , and also a full featured debugger – Raxvan Dec 16 '13 at 16:22
  • @Lightness Races in Orbit Also edit and continue, moving the execution point while debugging , etc. Also i think that VS2013 pro is miles ahead of anything out there that is for c++ – Raxvan Dec 16 '13 at 16:25
  • @nvoigt i was interested in hearing the opinions, on the web i sure can find informations, but the maintainers will never tell me that their debugging utilities are awful or that their intellisense is laggy and buggy ( NOT saying that they are just an example ). And i don't see the point of downvoting me .. i didn't research ? i was looking for some people with hand on experience that have tried the new devc++. – Edoardo Dominici Dec 16 '13 at 16:34
  • @Raxvan _'In my opinion'_ That's why I've close voted the question as 'Primarily Opinion based'. – πάντα ῥεῖ Dec 16 '13 at 16:35
  • @Raxvan: Those are "packages" in Dev-C++. VS2013 is not "miles ahead of anything out there that is for C++" in _any_ way -- it is in fact "miles behind" both GCC and Clang, with swathes of non-compliance at every turn. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 16:36
  • @Lightness Races in Orbit GCC and Clang are not IDE's, they are compilers :) , and i agree , regarding the integration of c++11 features, vs2013 **compiler** is behind – Raxvan Dec 16 '13 at 16:38
  • 1
    @Raxvan Yes! the question is specifically about the IDE and i didn't even mention the MSVC, and i know ( as Lightness Races in Orbit mentioned ) that you don't need intellisense to write good code, but my question was not that, i was just looking for opinions about the DevC++'s implementation of all the features that other IDEs have – Edoardo Dominici Dec 16 '13 at 16:44
  • @Raxvan: The most important part of any C++ IDE is its C++ compilation support. I couldn't care less about "IncludeManager", "StyleManager" or whatever else is _cool_ these days — first and foremost is the question "does this product accept well-formed C++ and produce a reliable executable from it?" – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 17:29
  • @Lightness Races in Orbit The question is related to the IDE itself not the compiler only. It's worth mentioning the compiler that comes with the ide but that's not the whole package. Also VS2013 has support for clang. The "cool" new features is what makes an IDE , otherwise we could just use notepad, but that's not an IDE – Raxvan Dec 16 '13 at 17:35
  • @Raxvan: The cool new features are fine but you shouldn't pick your IDE based on them. The OP asked whether Dev-C++ is fit for purpose in 2013. The answer is _yes_. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 17:55

2 Answers2

3

A great deal here depends on what you want.

I would characterize Dev-C++ as a mediocre IDE with really good packaging.

What I mean by good packaging is that Dev-C++ is quite easy to get installed and working. The package includes a recent copy of gcc, and (at least in my experience) getting it installed and working is quite simple and straightforward. Up until a few years ago, the easiest way to get gcc installed and actually working (especially under Windows) was almost certainly to install Dev-C++. Even if you only planned to use the compiler from the command line, it was worth installing the IDE just to get the compiler installed correctly without jumping through dozens of flaming hoops. Other packages have caught up in that respect though, so there are half a dozen (or so) that make it trivial to get gcc installed and working just fine (and many of them have more up-to-date compilers than Dev-C++ too).

What I mean by mediocre IDE is that the editor (especially) simply isn't very capable compared to most others. Consider a few points:

  • No support for regexes in searching/replacing
  • Built-in version control support is hard coded for CVS
  • Ability to set compiler options in the environment is very limited

To me, these limitations might have been acceptable, say, 20 years ago, especially when more capable editors were likely to cost more money. Today, these strike me as simply inexcusable omissions. Given the number of free alternatives that are obviously superior, I can't imagine using this on a regular basis.

I have a hard time figuring out a person or situation to which I'd consider Dev-C++ well suited. If you're programming on a regular basis, you deserve a more capable editor, and integration with the source code control you're using (which I certainly hope isn't CVS).

It's kind of a stretch, but I suppose it might work for a middle manager who wants to be able to glance through code and check that it compiles cleanly, but doesn't use it enough to bother learning any more than the most rudimentary use of an editor. Even there, however, failing to support modern version control systems is a severe limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plug-ins to support more modern version control, but if you have to spend much time on configuration, you lose the one real advantage of Dev-C++.

Bottom line: While it might not be the worst possible choice, I also can't imagine a situation in which Dev-C++ would be my first choice, or even among my top three choices.

Jerry Coffin
  • 476,176
  • 80
  • 629
  • 1,111
  • For the record, I stray from integrated version control and do my SVN-ing myself from shell (well, okay, using context menus from a graphical shell). I personally wouldn't use an IDE for much IDE-ing stuff. Consequently, though I'm not a "middle manager" by any stretch of the imagination, I would have no problem using this IDE. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 16 '13 at 17:56
  • Even using nothing else, you're stuck with the fact that the editor is *sadly* deficient. If I were stuck with this IDE, the first (and last) thing I'd write with it would be a simple editor that supported regexes. – Jerry Coffin Dec 16 '13 at 19:04
1

Archived answer: As of 2019, neither the original Dev-C++ project nor the Orwellian spin-off have put out a stable release in several years. The below is no longer true. In addition, Visual Studio has greatly improved and has a free offering.

Dev-C++ has picked up a lot of "bad press" over the years from people who think they know what they are talking about. But the truth is that these "new features" of "modern IDEs" are not required to write good programs.

In fact, I'd say that Visual Studio 2013 differs from Visual Studio 2008 only in the sense that it is massively bloated, looks horrific and only barely supports the language that it purports to allow you to write. The sole exception that I can see is the Intellisense which, again, is often at odds with the actual Visual Studio compiler due to large discrepancies in language support between the two.

Dev-C++, on the other hand, uses a recent MinGW by default (which is an excellent product) and lets you — gasp — write C++ code, that is then compiled and linked into an executable that you can send to all your friends. Since the software is still being actively developed, the staple accusation of those self-proclaimed experts that it is "out of date" is hardly defensible.

Lightness Races in Orbit
  • 378,754
  • 76
  • 643
  • 1,055