Is Visual C++ express really free?

[Kevin McFarlane]

Dev-C++ lets you get away with a lot of things, not good, not bad.

Well, in this case it's not "letting you get away with anything." It's conforming to the standard!

I think that Red Squirrels code sample should be illegal.

Why? It conforms to the standard! Or are you saying that the standards committee made the wrong choice?

[Arjay]

You(People) can be nicer to GamesSmash. He asks one question that you may see as ridicious and that you could have simply answered, but all you done was whine like babies.

I believe you need to reread my replies to GamesSmash. At no point was I ever not nice to him.

[bitshifter420]

Well, in this case it's not "letting you get away with anything." It's conforming to the standard!



Why? It conforms to the standard! Or are you saying that the standards committee made the wrong choice?

Yes, i think the committee made the wrong choice.
I also think that 'for' and 'do while' statements are unnecessary.
It can all be done with the 'while' loop which is faster, simpler, and easier to read.
If you conform to that, then Red Squirrels code should be illegal.

[Paul McKenzie]

Dev-C++ lets you get away with a lot of things, not good, not bad.

And most of those reasons why Dev-C++ (g++) lets you get away with things is that by default, the ANSI switch for g++ is not turned on. Therefore a lot of code that is illegal C++ is accepted by the default mode of the Dev-C++ IDE (no ANSI switch invoked). This is one of the weaknesses of the g++ compiler -- its default mode is to compile non-compliant C++ code. Maybe for legacy reasons this can't be changed, but it really doesn't help the new programmer too well if what they believe they're writing is proper C++.

For example, declaring arrays with expressions as the number of entries instead of constant values. Legal in the default Dev-C++ configuration, but absolutely illegal C++.

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
   int n;
   std::cin >> n;
   int array[n];
//...
}

This code will compile using g++ without the ANSI switch on. However, the code is not legal C++ as you can't declare arrays using variables or any expression that uses variables. There are many threads here on CodeGuru (and in other programming forums) where the newbie C++ programmer writes a program like this, and never realizes what they're writing is not valid C++.

Needless to say, they get into all sorts of trouble once the code needs to be moved to any other compiler other than g++.

Regards,

Paul McKenzie

[Paul McKenzie]

Yes, i think the committee made the wrong choice.
I also think that 'for' and 'do while' statements are unnecessary.
It can all be done with the 'while' loop which is faster, simpler, and easier to read.

So everything can also be programmed in assembly, so lets all write in assembly. Every high-level language that I've used has multiple ways to write loops. C++ is no different.

The other looping constructs allow more natural ways of coding loops. It is easier in many ways to conceptualize a for loop in many circumstances than the equivalent while() loop, and vice-versa. A do-while() is used in the case where you must do a block of code at least once, and do the test for continuation after the block of code has been executed. Try to write the same thing with while(), and you will see that do-while() looks more natural to a programmer, and is easier to maintain.

Also as far as speed goes, it is the final optimizations that the compiler makes that determines which is faster, not what type of loop you use. If you code an equivalent while() loop and for() loop, the difference will be practically zero once the compiler optimizes the code. The "which is faster" argument cannot be made for tidbits like for() loops versus while() loops. Only the compiler's optimizer, not human eyes looking at source code, will determine the speed difference in these circumstances.

If you conform to that, then Red Squirrels code should be illegal.

But it isn't illegal, so it's all a moot point.

Regards,

Paul McKenzie

[souldog]

Your comparisons seemed to be centered around web development which is a small part of the work I do. As far as Open Office - my business partner uses it and it's a bit of a pain for me to have to convert to a format that he is able to use (his version doesn't support docx). Access vs. mySQL, maybe. mySQL vs. MS SQL or Oracle? - mySQL falls way short in terms of features and tools. If open source works for you, use it.

No I was focusing on many software components that a typical computer user uses everyday.

For the record I don't use open source development tools. I used to use dev-C++ if I wanted to write any sophisticated code, since VC++ 6.0 could not handle it.
Almost all my complaints against VC++ disappeared when I upgraded to VC2005.
I think the MS guys did a good job fixing this product. Would I recommend VC++ to a new user developing applications for windows: absolutely.

MFC is another story all together. I have not upgraded to 2008 and looked at the "new" version, so I may be speaking too soon. My guess is that they have not addressed the architectural design flaws. Instead they are probably focusing on more GUI components. I think they are probably stuck in this state because of the huge user base.

docX? You make my point for me. I wonder if Kevin using Office 2000 can open a docX file? I wonder if Office 2007 even provides an easy way to produce a file that Kevin can open? I guess he is going to have to go out and buy the new version. I have to admire that as a good business plan.

[Joeman]

Also in the free world you have Blender, code::blocks, apache, linux, compiz, sauerbraten, gimp(ok, but little hard), php, phpmyadmin, all the gnu tools(even gcc), and there are lots more very useable programs that people daily use that I can't recall off hand.

Just look at all the open source projections here: http://sourceforge.net

I am sure most of them aren't superior, but if you look close enough, you will find "top notch" free programs out there. I don't use Open Office, but I am sure it is comparable to microsofts .

Also since we are talking about other c++ ides, I want to point out code::blocks for their great ide I use. It is very nice. I only complain that the definition tool can be better, but it is very good besides that minor problem. I have to look into ms 2008 ide to see what the main differents are between them, but everytime I try I keep going back to code::blocks

[souldog]

the IDE that tends to be the "best" to any given user is the one they learned first.
That is the reason MS gives away the express versions. It is smart business

[Arjay]

MFC is another story all together. I have not upgraded to 2008 and looked at the "new" version, so I may be speaking too soon. My guess is that they have not addressed the architectural design flaws. Instead they are probably focusing on more GUI components. I think they are probably stuck in this state because of the huge user base.

Indeed, MFC started out life as a 16-bit code base. It also was conceived prior to templates, so much of its architecture is based on an older, non-template approach. I'm sure if it was redesigned, it would look far different today. Of course as you said, that would most likely break people.

I find it hard to wonder how folks can complain about Visual Studio when using a version that's 10 years old. I'm one of those guys that uses the latest technology. It bothers me to start coding a new project with an old compiler. I've recently been working on two fairly large projects. I started coding one of them from the start with VS2008; the other project was upgraded from 2005 to 2008 after discussing it with the customer (it wasn't much of a port to upgrade though).

This hasn't happened in a long while, but I hate being in a position where I have to maintain code that's compiled in an older compiler - say using VC6. It would bother me to know that I have features available in the newer compilers/IDE's that I can't use. Fortunately I'm able to avoid such situations.

For the document formats, I'm a big believer in moving forward with technology. If you compare the file sizes of doc compared to docx, you'll see a significant size reduction. Also, if you look at the earlier doc versions compared to the later, you'll see differences there as well (earlier versions were COM documents, while the later versions became xml based). To me that's progress; others may feel that the same format should be carried on forever - I don't happen to believe that.

All this is neither here nor there, like I said if open source apps work for you, great.

[Arjay]

Also since we are talking about other c++ ides, I want to point out code::blocks for their great ide I use. It is very nice. I only complain that the definition tool can be better, but it is very good besides that minor problem. I have to look into ms 2008 ide to see what the main differents are between them, but everytime I try I keep going back to code::blocks

I don't just code C++, so an important consideration to me is whether the IDE supports other non-C++ project types such as Web Services, Windows services, .Net code, installations and so on. For C++ code, does it provide different project types that help me get my work done? I don't want to have to start each project from scratch and have to learn a bunch of different applications.

[Kevin McFarlane]

docX? You make my point for me. I wonder if Kevin using Office 2000 can open a docX file? I wonder if Office 2007 even provides an easy way to produce a file that Kevin can open? I guess he is going to have to go out and buy the new version. I have to admire that as a good business plan.

MS provides a free Office 2007 Compatibility pack which is available for Office 2000 which means I can in fact open docx documents. Of course, had I still been using Office 97 I'd have been in trouble.

But in any case, how many Office users are currently using Office 2007? Not many, so compatibility would not have been a big issue anyway. Office 2000 can read Office 2003. Or I could ask 2007 users to save in older format.

[Joeman]

If i understand you, yeah it does for an initial position. Code::Blocks have a list of project types:

1. avr project
2. code::blocks plugin
3. console application
4. D application
5. Direct/X project
6. Dynmic Link Library
7. Empty project
8. FLTK project
9. GLFW project
10. GLUT project
11. GTK+ project
12. Irrlicht project
13. Kernel Mode Driver
14. Lightfeather project
15. Orgre project
16. OpenGL project
17. QT4 project
18. SDL project
19. Shared library
20. SmartWin project
21. Static library
22. Win32 GUI project( my favorite! )
23. wxWidgets project

You can also modify each one. Oh and you can change compilers with code::blocks. If you have ms 2008 compiler for c++, you can make code::blocks use it

I do have a question about vs2008. Does it have a source code formatter? In code::blocks you can format your code to either one of these:

1. ANSI
2. K&R
3. Linux
4. GNU
5. Java
6. Custom

[souldog]

MS provides a free Office 2007 Compatibility pack which is available for Office 2000 which means I can in fact open docx documents. Of course, had I still been using Office 97 I'd have been in trouble.

But in any case, how many Office users are currently using Office 2007? Not many, so compatibility would not have been a big issue anyway. Office 2000 can read Office 2003. Or I could ask 2007 users to save in older format.

Fair enough, I was speaking without knowing for sure.

[S_M_A]

Firefox is an excellent browser and probably the most end-user friendly open source product to date.

I don't use it but here's some interesting comparisions http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

[Kevin McFarlane]

I don't use it but here's some interesting comparisions http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

I'm aware of that link but I couldn't care less what its says. I've used IE 6, IE 7, Opera (various versions up to current), Firefox 1.x to current and IMO Firefox is still the best. The relevant criteria for me are features and general usability. I was never interested in alleged better security, faster speed, etc.