luke101
August 23rd, 2004, 12:32 PM
Just starting out on c++ and trying to decide which one to choose. Which one do you think would run the fastest or which one is better over all. If neither which compiler would you recommend
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Dev C++ VS MS VC++ 6.0
RoboTact
August 23rd, 2004, 01:32 PM
Dev c++ is a cygwin compiler, it can be used to compile unix-friendly applications :)
To create user-friendly applications, use VisualC++.
It is a native system to create GUI and other Windows-specific programms. For "pure" C++ programs I think, VisualC++ is better just because its better interface and performance.
To create user-friendly applications, use VisualC++.
It is a native system to create GUI and other Windows-specific programms. For "pure" C++ programs I think, VisualC++ is better just because its better interface and performance.
Andreas Masur
August 23rd, 2004, 03:11 PM
[ Moved thread ]
KevinHall
August 23rd, 2004, 03:30 PM
For "pure" C++ programs I think, VisualC++ is better just because its better interface and performance.
Actually, the GNU compiler is usually better at optimizing than MSVC++6.0. MSVC++7.1 and MSVC++8.0 are better, but I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing then to the GNU compilers.
As far as Visual C++ creating user-friendly interfaces, I'd have to comment that wxWindows, GTK, QT, .. can be quite comparable to MFC. These also have the advantage that they have fewer bugs and design flaws than MFC. On the other hand MFC (via Visual C++) comes with a lot of handy wizards and tools unavailable to these other libraries. MFC also has a wide user base and most bugs and design flaws are well documented (in MFC forums) and have well documented workarounds (in the same forums).
Personally, if I were to build a Windows (OS) "windowing" application, then I'd use Visual C++ / MFC -- just because it would be quicker. If I were to build a Windows (OS) console application that didn't need to be ported, I'd have to say that I'd still stick with Visual C++ because of its excellent IDE and integrated debugger. If I needed to build a portable (to a non-Windows OS), then I'd use the a more conformant compiler and wxWindows or QT. The more conformant compiler could be the GNU compiler, but may also be Visual Studio .NET 2003 or even better Visual Studio .NET 2005 (available in beta here (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/)). I have to give it to MS, their IDEs are excellent for code navigation and debugging.
Actually, the GNU compiler is usually better at optimizing than MSVC++6.0. MSVC++7.1 and MSVC++8.0 are better, but I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing then to the GNU compilers.
As far as Visual C++ creating user-friendly interfaces, I'd have to comment that wxWindows, GTK, QT, .. can be quite comparable to MFC. These also have the advantage that they have fewer bugs and design flaws than MFC. On the other hand MFC (via Visual C++) comes with a lot of handy wizards and tools unavailable to these other libraries. MFC also has a wide user base and most bugs and design flaws are well documented (in MFC forums) and have well documented workarounds (in the same forums).
Personally, if I were to build a Windows (OS) "windowing" application, then I'd use Visual C++ / MFC -- just because it would be quicker. If I were to build a Windows (OS) console application that didn't need to be ported, I'd have to say that I'd still stick with Visual C++ because of its excellent IDE and integrated debugger. If I needed to build a portable (to a non-Windows OS), then I'd use the a more conformant compiler and wxWindows or QT. The more conformant compiler could be the GNU compiler, but may also be Visual Studio .NET 2003 or even better Visual Studio .NET 2005 (available in beta here (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/)). I have to give it to MS, their IDEs are excellent for code navigation and debugging.
Mick
August 23rd, 2004, 03:37 PM
I have to give it to MS, their IDEs are excellent for code navigation and debugging.
I'll have to dispute the debugging part :p SoftIce and WinDbg(and the console equivs) (even though it is a MS product) are far better. :D
I'll have to dispute the debugging part :p SoftIce and WinDbg(and the console equivs) (even though it is a MS product) are far better. :D
RoboTact
August 23rd, 2004, 03:50 PM
I meant performance in part of interface (compilation time), though optimization is not much lesser and in some hints of optimization it is better.
KevinHall
August 23rd, 2004, 03:57 PM
SoftIce is preferred solution for debugging device drivers and problems with the kernel.
OK, it's also good for more typical debugging too. Given it's price tag though, I can't afford it (and my company won't buy it) -- and since I don't debug device drivers or problems with the kernel, the Visual Studio IDE suffices and ends up being far better than any other inexpensive solution I've seen.
OK, it's also good for more typical debugging too. Given it's price tag though, I can't afford it (and my company won't buy it) -- and since I don't debug device drivers or problems with the kernel, the Visual Studio IDE suffices and ends up being far better than any other inexpensive solution I've seen.
Mick
August 23rd, 2004, 04:05 PM
SoftIce is preferred solution for debugging device drivers and problems with the kernel.
OK, it's also good for more typical debugging too. Given it's price tag though, I can't afford it (and my company won't buy it) -- and since I don't debug device drivers or problems with the kernel, the Visual Studio IDE suffices and ends up being far better than any other inexpensive solution I've seen.
windbg is free, and is just as comparable as SoftIce (though not standalone, or should I say limited in standalone)...but I am biased since I've been using windbg for a long time...it has it's quirks...but all in all. You can extend windbg with all sorts of goodies. But if you don't do alot of reverse engineering, peeking under the hood, then the IDE will do I suppose...
OK, it's also good for more typical debugging too. Given it's price tag though, I can't afford it (and my company won't buy it) -- and since I don't debug device drivers or problems with the kernel, the Visual Studio IDE suffices and ends up being far better than any other inexpensive solution I've seen.
windbg is free, and is just as comparable as SoftIce (though not standalone, or should I say limited in standalone)...but I am biased since I've been using windbg for a long time...it has it's quirks...but all in all. You can extend windbg with all sorts of goodies. But if you don't do alot of reverse engineering, peeking under the hood, then the IDE will do I suppose...
luke101
August 23rd, 2004, 05:38 PM
WOW..didnt expect these many responses..I am interest in creating network software. Such as network monitors,etc.. a buddy of mine told me that visual c++ is bloated with stuff and advised to go with a smaller compilers.. Is this true?
RoboTact
August 23rd, 2004, 06:46 PM
WOW..didnt expect these many responses..I am interest in creating network software. Such as network monitors,etc.. a buddy of mine told me that visual c++ is bloated with stuff and advised to go with a smaller compilers.. Is this true?It is not true. It may be true for Borland Builders, Delphy. In VisualC the basic runtime library is as small as 20Kb (and you can exclude it to build 3Kb exe's), and you can use pure API calls so there would be no additional stuff; If you use other libraries, there is no difference between compilers in "bloating"... Visual tools in VisualC are not elaborated to create hidden tremendous code, only to write the pointed obvious parts, plus several project templates.
Mick
August 23rd, 2004, 07:06 PM
It is not true. It may be true for Borland Builders, Delphy. In VisualC the basic runtime library is as small as 20Kb (and you can exclude it to build 3Kb exe's), and you can use pure API calls so there would be no additional stuff; If you use other libraries, there is no difference between compilers in "bloating"... Visual tools in VisualC are not elaborated to create hidden tremendous code, only to write the pointed obvious parts, plus several project templates.
Huh? What are you saying?
Huh? What are you saying?
RoboTact
August 24th, 2004, 04:21 AM
Huh? What are you saying?
Then what are you desagree with?
Then what are you desagree with?
SOCM_FP_CPP
August 24th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Hi all ,
I am long time Microsoft compiler user ( I started C programming with MSC compiler which they co-developed with lattice and lifeboat associates ) and I have used all the versions of their C/C++ compiler.
In the olden days when there was Turbo C vs MSC 4.0 debate , Microsoft has always been a winner based on the quality of the code which the compiler producted and borland used to be a winner in Compilation speed.
Visual C++ is THE compiler of choice , if u plan to develop applications optimized (not based on code genaration ability alone ) for Windows operating system flavours. COM/OLE support , MFC , ATL tilts the balance in favour of Visual C++.
But if ur writing code meant to run on more than one platform, I feell DEV C++
( and MINGW ) has got a place.
I feel , depending on the context one should choose the compiler.
Car or Boat is better ? ( it all depends on what u want to cross ).
Praseed Pai
I am long time Microsoft compiler user ( I started C programming with MSC compiler which they co-developed with lattice and lifeboat associates ) and I have used all the versions of their C/C++ compiler.
In the olden days when there was Turbo C vs MSC 4.0 debate , Microsoft has always been a winner based on the quality of the code which the compiler producted and borland used to be a winner in Compilation speed.
Visual C++ is THE compiler of choice , if u plan to develop applications optimized (not based on code genaration ability alone ) for Windows operating system flavours. COM/OLE support , MFC , ATL tilts the balance in favour of Visual C++.
But if ur writing code meant to run on more than one platform, I feell DEV C++
( and MINGW ) has got a place.
I feel , depending on the context one should choose the compiler.
Car or Boat is better ? ( it all depends on what u want to cross ).
Praseed Pai
Mick
August 24th, 2004, 10:00 AM
Then what are you desagree with?
Nothing :D I think I read that the wrong way the first time. But while I'm at it I'll comment. The older versions of vc++ had some 'bloatage' where as the CRT contained code that you may or may not even use. They continue to trim this down, so that it has become a non issue. If you wanted to get your code down to 4kb etc, then you need to write your own replacement CRT. The soruce is documented in the CRT directory. Matt Pietrek has a couple of articles you can find in the Microsoft Journal.
Nothing :D I think I read that the wrong way the first time. But while I'm at it I'll comment. The older versions of vc++ had some 'bloatage' where as the CRT contained code that you may or may not even use. They continue to trim this down, so that it has become a non issue. If you wanted to get your code down to 4kb etc, then you need to write your own replacement CRT. The soruce is documented in the CRT directory. Matt Pietrek has a couple of articles you can find in the Microsoft Journal.
codeguru.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.