pouët.net

One thing is sure : if linux zealots spent more time actually making demos instead of comparing their knob with MS, linux would probably have more demos.

I AM making one, but if I'm not going to get a linux machine in NVscene, it's going to waste.

LiraNuna: I don't quite know what you expect me to know. That you did some DS-coding since you were hanging around at gbadev? Sure. How is that relevant here? Not at all.

I believe you were doing some development using GCC for homebrew.

I'm wondering why any C-Compiler would output C-Code in the first place, but you are also wrong. It uses "cmov" - as expected.
Anyway, GCC is not a bad compiler. The problem is the ide and the performance and stability of the debugger (talking about big projects).

The discussion's actually about GCC vs MS compiler, but thanks for your helpful input!

Not only for homebrew, I develop professionally using GCC, RealView and MSVC. I still don't quite get where you're going with this...

How about Intel's compiler? It's free for non commercial use for linux.
hellfire: I agree. The problem is the IDE.

The IDE is the OS.

_-_-__: what do you mean by that vague statement?

parapete: that he dual boots with emacs

nah, no dual booting here, emacs is my main OS =)

I think knos refers to the linux commandline tools, and I totaly agree with him.

Anyway, the toolset is the IDE. This idea that one single application is always better than a set of replaceable tools strikes me as slightly odd..

knos: Who said always? I use gdb every day at work, but if I get to choose I use the built-in vs-debugger any day. It's just that much more convenient and productive.

What kusma said.

And also, the idea that some people prefer to write makefiles and terminal commands over using an IDE which does these (tedious) things for you, strikes me as slightly odd..

Personally, I'd rather spend the hours I spent on compiling and downloading and fixing and installing prerequisites in Linux on actually doing something productive in Windows. People always say to me : "Linux can do everything Windows can do", and I just think, well, Windows can do everything Linux can do. Maybe a bit less efficiently, but what you lose in efficiency you gain in compatibility and ease of use and not spending hours racking your brain trying to figure out why an important bit of software won't compile.

Hopefully people won't want to kill me for saying that.

wb: the nice thing about makefiles is that they are totaly vendor, tool and platform independent, unlike most IDE's.

And I forgot version independent, even switching to a next version of the same IDE can already be hell. Makefiles don't have that problem.

sparcus: Sure, everything has its use, but personally I couldn't care less about cross-platform stuff when doing demos, since I only do windows stuff. I get enough makefile writing and cross-platform coding at work. But even when I *do* use makefiles, I still prefer to use MSVC.

What about Anjuta's debugger, anyone even used it?

sparcus: As if there isn't lots of compatibility-issues between different make tools (writing portable makefiles is a separate chapter in my copy of the make-book) or GNU make 2.79 (which IIRC is the latest publicly released version for win32) and 2.81 (which is the version the rest of the world uses) for that sake. Quit trying to make this problem-free, 'cause it's simply not true :)

At home, it's just I don't spend that much time writing makefiles. The syntax can be made pretty compact (especially using gnu make's niceties such as templates $(eval) and includes) and thus they are easy to change.

And when it comes to actual business, well, we have dedicated teams to make, maintain and improve the build system.

I'm using Gnu Make 3.81 in linux, windows and macosx (3.79 does not support some advanced functions and $(eval))

Why would you want to make Makefile portable across make implementations? Contrary to a programming language, there's no standard to be followed!