Bloodshed v. .NET

[Z!re]

.NET for win98 is 167MB
.NET for win2k is *cough* *sigh* 16-65535kb

Microsoft...

[na_th_an]

You know... Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are... How was that word?

OUTDATED.

So don't whine

[yetifoot]

theres still a lot of people using those OS'es though, i wouldn't want to write them off just yet.

[Z!re]

You know... Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are... How was that word?

OUTDATED.

So don't whine

Bite me.. spanish is outdated.. get a new lingo already..

[na_th_an]

There's a difference, I'm not whining on it.

[wallace]

I just like Bloodshed because of the way it looks. I learned FreeBasic first and its obvious that FBIde was based on Bloodshed.

Bloodshed isn't the name of the compiler, DevC++ is, bloodshed is the name of the developer that made it.

[DrV]

I just like Bloodshed because of the way it looks. I learned FreeBasic first and its obvious that FBIde was based on Bloodshed.

Bloodshed isn't the name of the compiler, DevC++ is, bloodshed is the name of the developer that made it.

Dev-C++ is NOT a compiler. It is an IDE (and a piece of shit, imho) that uses the MinGW port of the GNU compiler collection and other tools to Windows.

[relsoft]

VC++ 2005 is a better compiler than MinGW anyway.

I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who would claim that MinGW (or GCC in general) is a better compiler than VC++ 2005 (or any version, for that matter).

Are you claiming that the generated code is faster or smaller? (I would doubt that the MSVC-generated code is much faster, and code size is hardly a concern any more.) Or perhaps you are saying that the Visual Studio IDE is better than Dev-C++? (I am inclined to agree with this, but that has nothing to do with either *compiler*.) Or something altogether different?

In any case, where are the facts to support your claim?

Yep, VC++ 6 is a lot faster. Tried benchmarking my julia rings fractal in both and VC++ outperforms MingW by 50%.

I was using a 233 mhz comp.

[Hard Rock]

I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who would claim that MinGW (or GCC in general) is a better compiler than VC++ 2005 (or any version, for that matter).

Are you claiming that the generated code is faster or smaller? (I would doubt that the MSVC-generated code is much faster, and code size is hardly a concern any more.) Or perhaps you are saying that the Visual Studio IDE is better than Dev-C++? (I am inclined to agree with this, but that has nothing to do with either *compiler*.) Or something altogether different?

In any case, where are the facts to support your claim?

There have been several comparisons, in general VC++ wipes GCC off the floor. Its both faster,has a superior IDE and pretty much takes the cake.

Not that i dont mind programming for either one but right now im seriously considering dropping mingw for Visual Studio completely. The only thing holding me back is i'm intending on releasing the game on both windows and linux, so mingw does have its uses.

BUT when i distribute the file under windows i will be using vc++ for the final compile, i know the intel is faster but i dont legally own a copy(actaully i dont have one period, but were i to get one it would be straight off the net) so thats not really an option.

[yetifoot]

Is the C++ compiler with .NET any good? , i suppose i would expect VC++ (the old ones) to be smaller/faster than mingw, but wouldn't know about .NET version as i never used it.