which one

[ArCHoN]

new to codeing which one should i start with devC++ or Visual Studios .NET C++

[Yoni]

I'd go with the existent one

[iago]

I'd say go with DevC++ because a) it's free b) it's better to learn ANSI C, not Microsoft C.

[Skywing]

I'd say go with DevC++ because a) it's free b) it's better to learn ANSI C, not Microsoft C.

Note that the Microsoft compiler and documentation clearly label nonstandard extensions and explain how to turn them off.

[iago]

I'd say go with DevC++ because a) it's free b) it's better to learn ANSI C, not Microsoft C.

Note that the Microsoft compiler and documentation clearly label nonstandard extensions and explain how to turn them off.

People tend not to read documentation, though.  In either case, dev is free and uses the gnu compiler, which is platform-independant.

[Skywing]

I'd say go with DevC++ because a) it's free b) it's better to learn ANSI C, not Microsoft C.

Note that the Microsoft compiler and documentation clearly label nonstandard extensions and explain how to turn them off.

People tend not to read documentation, though.  In either case, dev is free and uses the gnu compiler, which is platform-independant.

GCC also has many nonstandard extensions enabled by default (far more than VC) and of course, you'd have to view the documentation to find them :p

There is a Win32 port (mingw) but it's headers are inaccurate and the compiler itself is missing important features such as support for structured exception handling.

Besides, GCC's AT&T-style inline assembler syntax sucks!

[Kp]

GCC also has many nonstandard extensions enabled by default (far more than VC) and of course, you'd have to view the documentation to find them :p

There is a Win32 port (mingw) but it's headers are inaccurate and the compiler itself is missing important features such as support for structured exception handling.

Besides, GCC's AT&T-style inline assembler syntax sucks!

Use -ansi or -pedantic if you don't like GNU features.  The mingw headers aren't that bad (I've only needed to correct them a couple times, and it's pretty easy to compare the PSDK headers from Microsoft with the GNU ones to find problems).  AT&T syntax is way better than Intel syntax; how else can you name a global variable ecx and not confuse the assembler?

Also, IMO, gcc's functionality for inline assembly is more powerful than that provided with VS.

[Skywing]

Functionality, perhaps, but I still think the *syntax* sucks :p