www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - Bloodshed Dev-C++

reply S. Chancellor <dnewsgr mephit.kicks-ass.org> writes:
I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
(http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this 
is very conducive to attracting developers.


-S.
Feb 12 2006
next sibling parent reply Roald Ribe <rr.nospam nospam.teikom.no> writes:
S. Chancellor wrote:
 I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
 gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
 (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this 
 is very conducive to attracting developers.

If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice. It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface. Roald
Feb 12 2006
next sibling parent Venix <venix1 hotmail.com> writes:
Roald Ribe wrote:
 S. Chancellor wrote:
 
 I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
 gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
 (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like 
 this is very conducive to attracting developers.

If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice. It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface. Roald

the /++ & ++/ comments tho.
Feb 17 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Roald Ribe wrote:

 If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a
 look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice.
 It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and
 has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on
 Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not
 tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface.

I can also recommend Code::Blocks. It can import Dev-C++ projects, too. It is using the wxWidgets interface library, making it very portable. There is a Mac OS X port of Code::Blocks in progress, by the way... ;-) --anders
Feb 18 2006
prev sibling parent reply S. Chancellor <dnewsgr mephit.kicks-ass.org> writes:
On 2006-02-12 19:55:03 -0800, Roald Ribe <rr.nospam nospam.teikom.no> said:

 S. Chancellor wrote:
 I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
 gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
 (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this 
 is very conducive to attracting developers.

If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice. It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface. Roald

My interest in it is providing a "Whole D Package" for people. Like ActivePython, Dev-C++ or likewise. It would be a real boon to people to have this. -S,
Feb 18 2006
parent Cris <central_p hotmail.com> writes:
 
 My interest in it is providing a "Whole D Package" for people.  Like 
 ActivePython, Dev-C++ or likewise.  It would be a real boon to people to 
 have this.

Yes Code::Blocks would be a perfect IDE for such a packaged. You could compile GDC and distribute it with Code::Blocks and also have DMD. Thought Code::Blocks support for D needs lots of work too it has bugs and it's not full. Unfortunately I cannot help much myself yet.
Mar 07 2006
prev sibling parent reply Fredrik Olsson <peylow treyst.se> writes:
S. Chancellor skrev:
 I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
 gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
 (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this 
 is very conducive to attracting developers.
 

I like Delphi myself, but as a detoxed Windows user I see huge portability problems. A port to Linux could be possible using Kylix, but then only on Intel hardware. Using Freepascal and Lazarus is another option, but Lazarus is not quite as mature as one would like. So my vote is no on this one :(. // Fredrik
Feb 12 2006
parent John Stoneham <captnjameskirk moc.oohay> writes:
Fredrik Olsson wrote:
 S. Chancellor skrev:
 I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use 
 gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
 (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like 
 this is very conducive to attracting developers.

I like Delphi myself, but as a detoxed Windows user I see huge portability problems. A port to Linux could be possible using Kylix, but then only on Intel hardware. Using Freepascal and Lazarus is another option, but Lazarus is not quite as mature as one would like. So my vote is no on this one :(. // Fredrik

One other downside is that once installed it is almost impossible to remove! There is no Uninstall Start-menu item, no "uninstall.exe" in the program directory, no entry in Add/Removes Programs, and it plops files down in hidden directories and makes Registry entries, so simply deleting the program directory is no good. There are a few forum entries around the net on how to remove it manually, which is a complicated process. I wish I had known this before I tried it out!
Feb 17 2006