Starting C++. Again.

[R.a.B.B.i.T]

I personally love my gcc

[Mangix]

why would you need an IDE for writting C++ anyways?

just download the Visual C++ 2003 Toolkit and compile it with the compiler. it's not hard

[Warrior]

....Mangix...just shutup. Please.

You'd need an IDE to keep large programs organized if your aim isn't at a low level but at a user level of programming.
IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe and offer handy things such as syntax highlighting/

[dxoigmn]

....Mangix...just shutup. Please.

You'd need an IDE to keep large programs organized if your aim isn't at a low level but at a user level of programming.
IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe and offer handy things such as syntax highlighting/

I dunno, I have worked on some large collaborative projects without using an IDE. Just a makefile, emacs, a terminal, and cvs.

I don't quite understand how "IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe" when that seems like the compiler's job?

[Kp]

You'd need an IDE to keep large programs organized if your aim isn't at a low level but at a user level of programming.
IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe and offer handy things such as syntax highlighting/

Perhaps you're confused on terminology.  Large programs can be easily maintained without an IDE.  IDEs do not offer optimizations on anything; though some IDEs do wrap compilers that can do very good optimizations.  Syntax highlighting is also commonly available outside an IDE.  The only reason I can see that you'd want an IDE is so that if your editor crashes, it takes everything else down with it.

[Mangix]

IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe and offer handy things such as syntax highlighting/

...lmao. how do IDEs optimize the exe? do they hack the compiler and make it l33t?

as for syntax highlightning, Notepad2 is always the best

[Blaze]

...lmao. how do IDEs optimize the exe? do they hack the compiler and make it l33t?

as for syntax highlightning, Notepad2 is always the best

@1st comment:  It could use an optimizing switch on the compiler, that it chose is best suited for your code. *shrug*
@2nd comment:

[Mangix]

an optimizing switch huh? i dont think you would need an IDE to do that though

[Blaze]

It was a made up example... and now that I think about it, it was stupid.

I personally like ide's for thier features, such as function completion and managability.

[FrOzeN]

@Joe: Before bothering on adding objects such as RichTextBox's, I'd suggest learning how to make a basic 'form'. If you had done that already you'd realise how the objects get handling.

As for CSocket, wasn't it developed in VB6 as a result of many Winsock API tutorials.. turning into an API equivalent of Winsock.ocx?

[Blaze]

Yes, CSocket is a api version of winsock.ocx

[Warrior]

You'd need an IDE to keep large programs organized if your aim isn't at a low level but at a user level of programming.
IDE's also tend to offer optimizations to the exe and offer handy things such as syntax highlighting/

Perhaps you're confused on terminology. Large programs can be easily maintained without an IDE. IDEs do not offer optimizations on anything; though some IDEs do wrap compilers that can do very good optimizations. Syntax highlighting is also commonly available outside an IDE. The only reason I can see that you'd want an IDE is so that if your editor crashes, it takes everything else down with it.

Well, I personally don't feel like writing a makefile with all of the command line arguments and find it easier to maintain large products which are made for a single platform at a user level inside an IDE since like you said all of the options wrap around arguments applicable to the compiler it'self

Now, it's probably my fault for not explaining deeper what I was talking about.

Emacs..*shudder*. I'd rather use something where I don't have to use all 10 fingers to perform a command.
I can also see the advantage of keeping a CVS and maybe you're used to your method of doing things, what I said was merely personal
preference and was providing my opinion on a comment made.

I hope I cleared most of everything up in this response.

[Kp]

I hope I cleared most of everything up in this response.

You did, but some of your remarks lead me to believe you're trying to take a brute force approach when working without an IDE.  There are better ways to do makefile-driven development.

Well, I personally don't feel like writing a makefile with all of the command line arguments and find it easier to maintain large products which are made for a single platform at a user level inside an IDE since like you said all of the options wrap around arguments applicable to the compiler it'self

Most modern make utilities support several features to make this much less painful.  You can use make variables to remember common settings.  Traditionally, the variable CFLAGS holds all the options which you wish to pass to your C compiler.  CXXFLAGS holds options specific to invocations of your C++ compiler.  Make also supports including other Makefiles, so you could have a Makefile of environment-wide settings that all your projects include.  Implicit rules allow you to write a few definitions for files (e.g. build .c files this way, .cc files that way, and .l files with flex), and then not worry about it anymore.  If you're clever, you can put the implicit rules in your environment-wide makefile, and use make variables in the implicit rules so that individual projects can specify different settings.  For example:

# In environment.mak
# Default projects are built without optimization
CFLAGS=-O0
%.o :: %.c
   $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $< -o $@

# In per-project Makefile
# Use a different gcc version for this project
CC=gcc-3.4.2
# Optimize and don't generate debugging information
CFLAGS=-O2 -g0

Emacs..*shudder*. I'd rather use something where I don't have to use all 10 fingers to perform a command.

No contest there.  Vim is much better than emacs.

I can also see the advantage of keeping a CVS and maybe you're used to your method of doing things

Versioning systems are nice for large projects (even when used with an IDE), but Subversion is a much better choice than CVS.

[Warrior]

I'm realatively new to Makefile's that's why maybe I tend to pick the more "new user friendly" approach to things.
I knew about makefile's being able to include others (that's the only way I can see to compile everything in different directories by using $@  and $v and calling the next directories makefile respectively but outputting all object files into the same directory for easy linking)

[Mangix]

2003 IDE is nicer, that or use gcc wussies.

can the 2003 IDE do this?

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8716/vc20059rp.jpg