Bloodshed v. .NET

[wallace]

Is Bloodshed DevC++ entirely compatable with .NET C++ code?

[marzecTM]

no, not completely. the two compilers ( actually devc++ uses the mingw compiler which is 100% compatible to the gnu gcc compiler suite ) have different "compiler directives", vc has #pragma, mingw has other keywords for that. also they both don't 100% support the c++ standard, where vc is ( as far as i know and experienced ) less standard comforming. however, you can normally compile code in both compilers with no or minor changes. just watch out for template programming which is not entirely the same. also if you use c++ names get mangled and vc and mingw mangle names differently. interfacing c++ code between the two compilers is thus onyl possible if you use a bridge c wrapper, as c functions don't get mangled ( if you compile with g++ or vc put all the c function declarations in a extern "C" { } block)

[NecrosIhsan]

The dotnet C++ compiler is supposed to be really strict in terms of compliance with C++ standards. That's what people tell me anyways...I don't know/care since I don't use such rubbish.

[marzecTM]

the oposite is the case, especially for template programming. vc is a bit weak in that area. that's what i know from my and other ppls experience

[thegrogen]

The dotnet C++ compiler is supposed to be really strict in terms of compliance with C++ standards. That's what people tell me anyways...I don't know/care since I don't use such rubbish.

.Net 2005 is really quite strict (VC++ 6.0 was horrible in terms of standards compliance) on the standard stuff, that is unless of course you're using the actual .Net stuff (which you don't have to, fortunately). VS 2005 is really good, and you can get the Express editions for free.

marzec: You were probably using VC++ 6.0. Don't use 6.0, use 2005, it's way better. I use it for coding stuff when I'm on my other computer, which has no access to the internet so I can't get Code::Blocks on it, and VC++ 2005 is a better compiler than MinGW anyway.

[DrV]

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?

[NecrosIhsan]

mingw and msvc are pretty on-par with each other, msvc has some advantages in specific cases. Of course though, the Intel compiler buries both of them and doesn't even bother leaving a headstone.

[thegrogen]

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

My mistake, I meant the IDE, though the compiler does sometimes produce faster code. For some reason, a lot of people used IDe and compiler interchangably. This is why we need a grammar nazi ninja squad around here...

[marzecTM]

ow, i use vc2003 atm as the 2005 express edition lacks all the necessary stuff to actually do something with it ( vctoolkit2003 anyone? ). vc6 was a hairy beast on its own hardly standard compliant. vc7 is fully standard compliant so i was wrong . maybe some more sleep would do me good...

and vc produces by far more optimal code than the mingw c++ compiler, optimal in size and speed that is. note however that mingw is not up to date ( 3.4.2 being the latest where as 4.0.something is the latest on linux which has vectorization now meaning it uses sse etc. ).

[stylin]

ow, i use vc2003 atm as the 2005 express edition lacks all the necessary stuff to actually do something with it

What stuff?