State why if you wish.

Visual C++ (because it's sexy), though I'd like to try out and/or buy Comeau sometime (because VC++ is too buggy).

gcc/g++ - note that dev-c++ (bloodshed) isn't a compiler, it's an IDE. In fact, so is VS and probably the others.

It depends what I'm doing, though - if I'm writing a windows program I use VS.

Intel's compiler has a lot of problems (even crashing). I'm told that it shares the same backend as Comeau, as well.

[quote author=iago link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52444 date=1080587559]
gcc/g++ - note that dev-c++ (bloodshed) isn't a compiler, it's an IDE. In fact, so is VS and probably the others.

It depends what I'm doing, though - if I'm writing a windows program I use VS.
[/quote]

Nice observation. I was hoping someone would get that. ;-)

[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52601 date=1080628108]
[quote author=iago link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52444 date=1080587559]
gcc/g++ - note that dev-c++ (bloodshed) isn't a compiler, it's an IDE. In fact, so is VS and probably the others.

It depends what I'm doing, though - if I'm writing a windows program I use VS.
[/quote]

Nice observation. I was hoping someone would get that. ;-)
[/quote]

Riight, I'll bet :P

Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?

[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?
[/quote]

It's the most popular because it's made by M$, who hold a monopoly on pretty much everything computer related.

I use g++ when I'm working in a unix environment. I usually write / test all my code in Visual C++ (.NET 2003)/ cl on my windows machine. It's supposed to be extremely ISO compliant (not that I've ever used partial templates or anything). It's not really the compiler that I like though -- It's the IDE. Debugging with GDB gives me all sorts of headaches, and don't get me started on you emacs/vi(m) people. I want my code completion!

[quote author=K link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52674 date=1080671710]
I use g++ when I'm working in a unix environment. I usually write / test all my code in Visual C++ (.NET 2003)/ cl on my windows machine. It's supposed to be extremely ISO compliant (not that I've ever used partial templates or anything). It's not really the compiler that I like though -- It's the IDE. Debugging with GDB gives me all sorts of headaches, and don't get me started on you emacs/vi(m) people. I want my code completion!
[/quote]

I don't like gdb, just because I don't understand it (yet?). And vi is rox0r. So there.

[quote author=K link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52674 date=1080671710]I use g++ when I'm working in a unix environment. I usually write / test all my code in Visual C++ (.NET 2003)/ cl on my windows machine. It's supposed to be extremely ISO compliant (not that I've ever used partial templates or anything). It's not really the compiler that I like though -- It's the IDE. Debugging with GDB gives me all sorts of headaches, and don't get me started on you emacs/vi(m) people. I want my code completion![/quote]

The wording of this post makes me thing you actually use the VC debugger, which is just horrible (or was when I last tried it). For debugging programs written in VC, you're much better off using windbg (which, after 10 minutes of searching the Microsoft site, I am unable to find -- their search engine needs work!)

[quote author=iago link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52660 date=1080668041]
[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?
[/quote]

It's the most popular because it's made by M$, who hold a monopoly on pretty much everything computer related.
[/quote]
Actually, I just have it because it was the most popular search result for "C++" in kazaa.
HAR.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52724 date=1080687096]Actually, I just have it because it was the most popular search result for "C++" in kazaa.[/quote]

Sure. Who would want to warez up a freely available compiler like Minimalist GNU for Windows (MinGW)? :P

Not really, the monopoly of software I would have to say is cisco. *Correcting spelling mistake*

[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?

[/quote]

And I very much wonder why gcc, djgpp etc weren't listed. The only one listed that I've used to build 32-bit apps is VC. But I do rather often use gcc.

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52826 date=1080740188]
[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?

[/quote]

And I very much wonder why gcc, djgpp etc weren't listed. The only one listed that I've used to build 32-bit apps is VC. But I do rather often use gcc.
[/quote]

Bloodshed's IDE uses a win32 version of gcc, I'm told, so I voted for that one :)

[quote author=Kp link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52697 date=1080678681]
[quote author=K link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52674 date=1080671710]I use g++ when I'm working in a unix environment. I usually write / test all my code in Visual C++ (.NET 2003)/ cl on my windows machine. It's supposed to be extremely ISO compliant (not that I've ever used partial templates or anything). It's not really the compiler that I like though -- It's the IDE. Debugging with GDB gives me all sorts of headaches, and don't get me started on you emacs/vi(m) people. I want my code completion![/quote]

The wording of this post makes me thing you actually use the VC debugger, which is just horrible (or was when I last tried it). For debugging programs written in VC, you're much better off using windbg (which, after 10 minutes of searching the Microsoft site, I am unable to find -- their search engine needs work!)
[/quote]
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/ddk/debugging

[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52826 date=1080740188]
[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?

[/quote]

And I very much wonder why gcc, djgpp etc weren't listed. The only one listed that I've used to build 32-bit apps is
VC. But I do rather often use gcc.
[/quote]

[quote][/quote]
Well I wasn't going to state all of them now. :P
[quote][/quote]

[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=15#msg53190 date=1080913846]
[quote author=Adron link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52826 date=1080740188]
[quote author=Define aka MosDef link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=0#msg52649 date=1080667135]
Hrm.. I wonder why so many prefer Visual C++?

[/quote]

And I very much wonder why gcc, djgpp etc weren't listed. The only one listed that I've used to build 32-bit apps is
VC. But I do rather often use gcc.
[/quote]

Well I wasn't going to state all of them now. :P
[/quote]

Well, you could've at least stated some common ones instead of all the very uncommon ones you did list? :P

I'm in between Borland and Visual C++

I like Borland over VC++ because:

1.) Whenever I try to make a project and compile it, I'm usually getting a billion errors about how some kind of library is missing -- Borland lacks this anoyance.

2.) When I do happen to successfully compile something, it creates like 50 different things in the folder where my source is.

3.) VC++ takes forever to load on my computer.

[edit] Added that I was actually talking about C++

[quote author=Eli_1 link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=15#msg53965 date=1081400342]
I'm a fan of Borland for these reasons:

1.) Whenever I try to make a project and compile it, I'm usually getting a billion errors about how some kind of library is missing -- Borland lacks this anoyance.

2.) When I do happen to successfully compile something, it creates like 50 different things in the folder where my source is.

3.) VC++ takes forever to load on my computer.
[/quote]
Next time, state that you are talking about VC++, you said you were a Borland fan and began stating bad things.

[quote author=Eli_1 link=board=30;threadid=6059;start=15#msg53965 date=1081400342]
I'm a fan of Borland for these reasons:

1.) Whenever I try to make a project and compile it, I'm usually getting a billion errors about how some kind of library is missing -- Borland lacks this anoyance.

2.) When I do happen to successfully compile something, it creates like 50 different things in the folder where my source is.

3.) VC++ takes forever to load on my computer.
[/quote]

For number 1, if you get errors about missing libraries only on MSVC, that might mean that Borland has more libraries listed on the linker command line by default. When I used Borland, I had the same situation as with MSVC - having to add libraries for anything unusual I wanted to include. Maybe they changed that. Listing only the common libraries should improve the speed of linking your executable slightly.

For number 2, assuming we're talking about the same thing, when I use VC++, it will typically create the 50 different things in a subfolder called "Debug" or "Release". These different things are stored there so the compiler has less work to do when you change something in one file and recompile. For a large project this will produce a huge speedup when making small changes. Gcc does the same thing, and Borland used to do it when I used it. I don't understand why it wouldn't now.

There's not much to be said about 3 really. MSVC loads fast enough here, Borland loads much faster, but then the Borland I have is a much simpler development environment that simply has less things to load... Using an older version of MSVC improves speed.

Hey I'm a beginner and I'm using the "Bloodshed Dev-C++," I find it fairly nice and simple to use so far, we will see how things go.