Opinions on best software to develope C++ code with

[SteveJ]

I've used an introductory version of MS Visual C++ to make my engine and am interested in opinions on best choice for purchase.

It seems like MS Visual Studio 2005 Standard Editionat $299 is a good choice.

Any thoughts?

Thx
Steve

[Zlaire]

Eclipse for $0 works well with C++, however you will have to install a separate compiler (there are quite a few free available). Once you're up and running it should work just as well as any of the expensive alternatives.

Perhaps give it a try before spending money on something else.

I've used MS Visual Studio quite a bit as well and it is a solid and nice environment.

[Ron Murawski]

I've used an introductory version of MS Visual C++ to make my engine and am interested in opinions on best choice for purchase.

It seems like MS Visual Studio 2005 Standard Editionat $299 is a good choice.

Any thoughts?

Thx
Steve

With open source coming on so strong there's little reason to pay for development software anymore unless your needs are very specialized. Here's some links to C++ compilers and IDEs that work just fine:

Free C/C++ Compilers - IDEs:

• * Code Blocks http://www.codeblocks.org/ -- a fully featured Windows/Linux GUI IDE front-end for any console C/C++ compiler (still in beta!)
  * Visual C++ 2005 Express http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/ -- Microsoft's free C/C++ compiler and GUI IDE
  * Open Watcom http://www.openwatcom.org/ -- Open Watcom C/C++ compiler with IDE + tools for Windows
  * MinGW http://www.byobingo.com/gcc_mingw.htm -- Minimal GCC snapshot builds for Windows
  * Digital Mars http://www.digitalmars.com/ -- C/C++ and D compilers for Windows

It's good to develop using *all* of these compilers. Each of them will give you different error messages and, if you stick with only one of them, it's possible to code-in non-portable mistakes and not know it.

For a release version you'll probably want to use the Microsoft product.

Ron

[sje]

It's good to develop using *all* of these compilers. Each of them will give you different error messages and, if you stick with only one of them, it's possible to code-in non-portable mistakes and not know it.

True. I'd go further and suggest different host platforms as well to avoid lock-in of all kinds. Remember that an engine does not need a GUI, so vendor specific approaches can be avoided for this main part of any chess program.

For Windows, there's the free Cygwin project that includes X Windows and the gcc compiler tool chain.

For Linux, it's possible to get a brand new PC with a 160 GB drive and 512 MB RAM for US$400 and you supply the monitor. Ubuntu Linux is free, but you'll likely need a decent Internet connection for all the development tool set downloading.

For Macintosh, it's possible to get a brand new Mac Mini (Core Duo) with a 60 GB drive and 512 MB RAM for US$600 and you supply the monitor, keyboard and mouse. An entire development kit is included free (Xcode, gcc tool chain, etc., also: X Windows); this is the software I use most and would be my personal recommendation for budget computing.

Used hardware can result in savings of 50% or more if you know where to look. A year 2000 vintage iMac DV can be found for under US$100 and can run all the latest free development software, although you might have to upgrade the OS (US$130). I have one of these and it works fine, although it's a bit slow compared to the more expensive newer models.

Essentially, the advice is not to spend money on development software unless absolutely necessary.

[Alessandro Scotti]

I have to give a different opinion on Mac developing. I've been using Xcode for the last couple of years and it's by far the worst IDE I've used in recent times. Fortunately there's the entire GCC suite behind it, which together with the Unix kernel makes for a very powerful environment. However, I've had much more fun programming Kiwi on Linux than Hamsters or Tickle (my arcade games emulator) on the Mac.
IMO Visual Studio 2005 is still the best IDE for C/C++, although I agree one should try NOT to spend money on developing tools if it can be helped.
IMO of course. YMMV, etc. etc.

[sje]

I'll grant that VS/C is probably the best tool for developing a Windows specific GUI. But that's about it. I've had to use MS tools for many years starting in the late 1970s and they've always been a disappointment. And yes, I had to deal with VS for a long time, but only when someone has paid me to do so.

Perhaps even more important are the political issues. Which companies are supporting open source efforts and which companies are working against these? Which companies try to avoid DRM and which companies try to inflict this damage at every opportunity? Which companies are inventive and which companies can only produce innovation by buying out smaller companies?

In any case, my advice is to avoid vendor lock-in.

[smrf]

Hi Steven,

I prosume, that with coming Mac OS X Leopard there will be a free 64 Bit development environment covering also modern Intel based CPU moreover matching a Mac user scene having all abilities to execute 64 Bit programs.

In contrast to this the majority of Windows users will not be able to execute 64 Bit C++ based programs, having either not the necessary hardware or not a 64 Bit Windows OS version including needed working 64 Bit drivers.

So I am just migrating from Windows to the Mac, currently using a MacBook.

Reinhard.

[sje]

Yes, Mac OS/X 10.5 (Leopard) should be available later this year and it will (supposedly) have an LP64 programming model. Xcode 3.0 is to be included for free.

[sje]

I should elaborate my answer a bit. Leopard will almost certainly not support G3 PowerPC machines and many users of older hardware including myself aren't too happy about this. The only real difference between the G3 and G4 PowerPCs is the the lack of a vector processor on the former, and this is really just a performance issue. It is also expected that Leopard will not run on early G4 PowerPC machines that don't have (or can't have) moderately advanced graphics processors and memory capability. Again, this is mostly just a performance issue.

Leopard will run on the somewhat recent G4 boxes and all the G5 boxes, but it will offer only 32 bit computing on the former. On the Intel side of things, Leopard will be 32 bit on the early MacBooks (also the very early MacBookPros) and the Mac Minis as these have CoreSolo/CoreDuo chips and not the 64 bit capable Core2Duos. All the current notebooks, iMacs, and the MacPro desktop are all 64 bit capable.

[Aleks Peshkov]

I use both:
1) MinGW + Eclipse (+subclipse);
2) Microsoft Visual C++ Express (Nice debugger, different (from GCC) compiler warning messages and optimization options help to catch mysterious bugs.)