C IDE Recommendations

[Jonathan Pritchard]

Apart from the other answers, you might want to take a look at
Code::Blocks. I haven't checked if it does code completion (which I
don't use myself), but it certainly has a lot of features.

Richard

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

 

[jacob navia]

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

Please reflect a bit .

Where should the executable be placed?

In the directory of the IDE?
In the directory of the source code?

Then, which compile time options you want to use.
None?
Default?

Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

Last time I checked Dev-C++ does not have any code-completion
feature. Neither has any feature that would qualify to being
a good IDE for that matter...

 

[goose]

ed wrote:




Hi Ed! Do you happen to have vim macros that do language-specific
bindings for things like keyword completion, filling parameter lists for
known library functions, or idiomatic code generation?

I love vim to death but whenever I see some of the things certain IDEs
can do, I find myself *wanting* those things.

Then maybe the OS known as emacs might interest you.

Either Windows or Linux can be a useful boot loader
for this OS.

goose,
sad, I know, but it's not my joke

 

[Jean Guillaume Pyraksos]

Has anybody tried the LEONARDO C IDE ?

http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/Leonardo/DownLoad.html

It seems to offers a "reversible" computing engine
(yes, forward and backward with a virtual CPU), and huge graphics lib.

JG

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

(a comment pointing out that you had answered a question with Yes,
when in fact the s/w under discussion did precisely the reverse of
what was asked for.

Holidays over Heathfield?

Back at writing nonsense again?

Welcome back...

Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Please reflect a bit .

Where should the executable be placed?

Why should anyone care? If you compile it and run it from the IDE, it
can place the executable entirely in memory for all the user cares.

Then, which compile time options you want to use.
None?
Default?

Whatever were set through the GUI. This still doesn't require a
project, merely parsing of the settings into a set of commandline
arguments.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[jacob navia]

Why should anyone care? If you compile it and run it from the IDE, it
can place the executable entirely in memory for all the user cares.




Whatever were set through the GUI. This still doesn't require a
project, merely parsing of the settings into a set of commandline
arguments.

Well I had forgotten how did I program that since it was several years
ago.

I closed my current project and opened a file with a standalone
application.

I pressed "compile "dotiger.c" " in the menu, and I obtained after
0.1 sec

dotiger.exe created successfully.

Project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked. I had (wrongly)
remembered that I asked for a project name, but not even that. Wedit
figures out the project's name from the file name, in this case it
created a "dotiger.prj" project.

It makes a subdirectory called "lcc" where it places the binaries.
Default options are debug info generation, and no optimizations.
The linker uses only the standard libraries (libc, kernel32.lib and
5 or 6 windows libraries that are often used.

I have been developing other stuff and forgot actually how easy it is.

 

[jacob navia]

(a comment pointing out that you had answered a question with Yes,
when in fact the s/w under discussion did precisely the reverse of
what was asked for.




Like I've said before, when you stop behaving like an idiot, you (and
thus your software) will get less bad press in this group.

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)

The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.

 

[jmcgill]

Why should anyone care?

Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.
> Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
> the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
> startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)
>
> The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
> how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.

 

[jacob navia]

The OP was clearly interested in compiling trivial programs, for which
projects are unnessary. I can do on Linux just fine without *ever*
needing something like a project. And some of these programs are
far from trivial.

Well, I told the original poster:
Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

A makefile documents what options you used for compiling, what
directory structure, etc. A "project" under lcc-win32 is just
a makefile.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.

The OP specifically asked for a way of compiling /without/ creating a
project.

The OP obviously is interested in a system that compiles its stuff,
how it does it is probably not of great interest to him.

The OP said: "There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to
complie some trivial programs because i have to create projects which sre
unnessary in this situation. Can lcc work like turbo c which complie source
code without creating a project?"

From this, it is very clear that he is interested in compiling /without/
creating a project.

Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.

If by sarcasm you mean "corrections to manifestly incorrect assertions",
then yes.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jmcgill said:

Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?

The executable program is where I put it, and where I put it might well
change. Or it might be put onto several machines. Or it might end up in
different locations on those different machines. Or maybe I will have no
control over where it ends up.

Under these circumstances, its physical location seems rather arbitrary, and
to have other systems - such as debuggers, or whatever - *rely* on its
physical location seems rather silly. If they need to know where it is when
they start up, fine, that's what argv is for.

 

[Richard Bos]

Well project creation is fully automatic, no questions asked.

Yes, that's what's so bad about it. I _want_ my IDE to ask questions
like that, and to take "no" for an answer. When I do not want a whole
bleedin' bell-and-whistled project but just a quick compile to test an
idea I had, my IDE must be able to do that, and I shouldn't need to
clean up after its arse. The alternative is Microsoft-ware.

Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)

That's a pretty stupid debugger you have, then. Luckily, Dev-C++ is more
intelligent than that.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

I'd like to use Code::Blocks, but it too has this create a project
problem. Creating a Hello World program, it wouldn't let me run it (only
compile it) from the IDE, until it was made into a project.

True. Apparently you want an IDE that gives you real freedom, freedom of
action, rather than one that only gives you freadom of speach or bear.
And like me, you've found that Dev-C++ gives you more of that than most
IDEs.

Dev-C++ just allows me to do whatever I want. Although if someone could
tell me how to get code completion to work, it's not in the help file.

It says so in the code completion configuration dialog: press ctrl-space
when you're typing. If you're in the middle of a word, it jumps to the
first snippet that starts with that half-word. Personally, I don't use
it much.

Richard

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Nils_O=2E_Sel=E5sdal=22?=]

Well, I told the original poster:

Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

Then it is a project.

It is not a throwaway program like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char **argv[])
{

printf("sizeof fp = %lu\n",(unsigned long)sizeof(main));

return 0;
}

That people sometimes want to just try/test. Or a 30 liner you get
from a fried who asks you to help with an error.

The op can read the lcc documentation on how to invoke lcc from a
command line.

 

[jacob navia]

Well, I told the original poster:

Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

Then it is a project.

It is not a throwaway program like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char **argv[])
{

printf("sizeof fp = %lu\n",(unsigned long)sizeof(main));

return 0;
}

That people sometimes want to just try/test. Or a 30 liner you get
from a fried who asks you to help with an error.

The op can read the lcc documentation on how to invoke lcc from a
command line.

Exactly. My IDE is not good for everything. It will not replace a
command line like

lc myprog.c

easy and simple, the command line does everything you want!

jacob

 

[jacob navia]

Yes, that's what's so bad about it. I _want_ my IDE to ask questions
like that, and to take "no" for an answer. When I do not want a whole
bleedin' bell-and-whistled project but just a quick compile to test an
idea I had, my IDE must be able to do that, and I shouldn't need to
clean up after its arse. The alternative is Microsoft-ware.

Look, you can do what you want with

lc myprog.c

at the command line. Mt IDE is not done for that kind of stuff,
since the command line compiler is better at that.

What do you wnat an IDE for?

IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment. You do not need
that for small throwaway programs.

That's a pretty stupid debugger you have, then. Luckily, Dev-C++ is more
intelligent than that.

Richard

Obviously the debugger is stupid. It will NOT figure out automagically
where the executable is.

How stupid isn't it?

Not at all like gdb, (the debugger Dev-C++ uses). As everyone knows
you have just to think

"Mmmm... maybe I should debug that"

and gdb will spring into action, read your mind and debug the program
you want without asking stupid questions.

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

Well, I told the original poster:

Why do you want the IDE to compile it? You could much better
and faster edit it with the IDE and compile it with the command
line if it is just an "hello world" program.
<<<

But I remember the old advice from Unix hands, that
I received when I started Unix:

"Always write a makefile, even if it is a trivial project"

A makefile documents what options you used for compiling, what
directory structure, etc. A "project" under lcc-win32 is just
a makefile.

What does the length of my program matter? I don't just want to be
making "Hello World" programs all my life. I want to be able to Ctrl+F9
and get a compile. Then F9 to run it. What's so hard about that? I just
want the IDE to be linked in with the compiler.

This thread is redundant and off-topic.

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

True. Apparently you want an IDE that gives you real freedom, freedom of
action, rather than one that only gives you freadom of speach or bear.
And like me, you've found that Dev-C++ gives you more of that than most
IDEs.


It says so in the code completion configuration dialog: press ctrl-space
when you're typing. If you're in the middle of a word, it jumps to the
first snippet that starts with that half-word. Personally, I don't use
it much.

Richard

Thank-you for answering my actual question.

As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to talk
about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I will. But I don't
need you to badger me with this.

It would be nice if Dev-C++ was still maintained. Great shame.