Re: [Dev-C++] CodeBlocks

[Per W. <pw...@ia...>]

I normally use the project options to add a single include line to the
project-generated make-file. The included file is a custom makefile with
the settings to use. I use a little script tool to generate this include
file based on the required settings.

On the command line I just specify debug or release build and the
directory where the framework is installed. I made a one-time investment
of an hour or two, giving me the ability to prepare a new project or
switch between build alternatives within a couple of seconds.

Let's say I'm building a wxWidgets application, I might run:

configure_wx c:\usr\src\wxWindows-2.5.1 debug

in the project directory to have the project setup to use version 2.5.1 of
the debug library, complete with path settings, compiler flags etc.

My main request from an IDE is to allow easy movement between multiple
syntax-highlighted auto-indented source files, together with parsing of
compiler messages to directly jump to source code errors. I don't care
about online help, class browsers, auto-completion etc. Most editors I
have tested takes too long for auto-completion so it's faster to just
write all text. The only thing I dislike about Dev-C++ is that the
auto-indent function so often fails - at least with the indent options I
prefer.

Having a IDE do everything might sound good, but if I can accomplish my
work by an Alt-Tab now and then, it really doesn't matter. For example, I
never try to debug an application in Dev-C++. I either make it right the
first time, or I run the debugger stand-alone.

An IDE that can do "everything" often starts to hamper. The amount of time
fighting with the IDE tends to quickly increase. I often find a need to be
able to do a lot of work from the command line. It might be automatic
nightly builds, regression testing, cross-compilations etc. Then it helps
if the IDE is light-weight and transparent.

/Per W

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Daniel K. O. wrote:

> Per Westermark wrote:
>
> >But that isn't really a problem. You can find out the needed
> >configurations yourself and specify in the project.
> >
> >
> Of course, I can always paste this
>
> -IC:/MINGW/include/gtk-2.0 -IC:/MINGW/lib/gtk-2.0/include
> -IC:/MINGW/include/atk-1.0 -IC:/MINGW/include/pango-1.0
> -IC:/MINGW/include/glib-2.0 -IC:/MINGW/lib/glib-2.0/include
>
> and this
>
> -LC:/MINGW/lib -lgtk-win32-2.0 -lgdk-win32-2.0 -latk-1.0
> -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lpangowin32-1.0 -lgdi32 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0
> -lgmodule-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -lintl -liconv
>
> whenever I need to write a quick GTK+ app. But it's obviously tiresome.
> I have ~40 .pc files, I use pkg-config a lot - I even create some .pc
> files for some setups I use often.
> Maybe for just a single big project it isn't a burden, but if you just
> want to write a small prototype, a test case, etc, it's really inconvenie=
nt.
>
>
> >While it is nice to have the project dynamically auto-adjust itself
> >whenever the gtk libraries are rebuilt with other options, it is not a
> >show stopper to do it manually...
> >
> >
> And it's nice to have an IDE that was supposed to speed up the work, but
> it's not a show stopper to code and invoke all the MinGW binaries in a
> shell by hand. IMHO IDEs are all about usability; instead of making the
> IDE recognize all the options for different compilers, the developers
> should be more concerned about making a confortable environment for the
> programmers (the "Project's Build Options" window is a total mess, and
> there are too many entries in the main menu).
>
>
> Code::Blocks is much superior to (R.I.P.) Dev-C++, but those little
> annoyances still make me use more Dev-C++ than Code::Blocks (yes, I use
> both).
>
>
> ---
> Daniel K. O.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Acesso Gr=E1tis: Internet r=E1pida e gr=E1tis.
> Instale o discador agora!
> http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
>
>
>