Eclipse++

[VitinhooxD]

@Stephan:

> @LOL:
>
> > So, what's the difference between C++ and C? without saying C++ sucks, explain pl0x?
>
> * Non-portable and non-standardised templates.
> * Existence of the bool type, which shouldn't be used as bitmaps or bit sets are more efficient.
> * Stream operators.
> * Classes and therefore virtual methods, polymorphism and inheritance.
> * libc vs. libstdcpp, where the latter actually enforces the OOP paradigm.
> * Almost all libraries are written in C for C. C++ generally uses C libraries.
> * Name spaces, which you don't even need.
> * C generally uses implicit typecasting, while C++ generally uses explicit typecasting.
> * C++ uses new and delete operators instead of malloc, calloc, realloc and free or any similar functions for memory management. On top of that new and delete call the constructor and destructor methods of a class respectively.
> * C++ uses a commenting style C89 doesn't support.
> * A lot of new keywords prevent old C code from working.
> * goto is prohibited in C++ whilst it is discouraged in C. Which are both wrong, since Assembly relies on branching all the time.
> * C++ can use C functions, but it requires 'extern "c"'.
> * libc for C++ is not conform to either C89 or C99.
> * Enumeration constants can be of any size in C++, whereas they can only be of type int in C.
> * C allows struct, union, and enum types to be declared in function prototypes, whereas C++ does not.
> * A struct, union, or enum declaration in C++ is a first class type, while in C it is not.
> * In C, a function prototype without arguments, e.g. 'int foo();', implies that the parameters are unspecified. Therefore it is legal to call such a function with one or more arguments, e.g. 'foo(42, "hello world");'. In contrast, in C++ a function prototype without arguments means that the function takes no arguments, and calling such a function with arguments is ill-formed. In C, the correct way to declare a function that takes no arguments is by using 'void', as in 'int foo(void);'.
> * C does not allow a given typedef to be duplicated in the same scope, whereas C++ allows repeated typedefs.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

Is there anything you dont know?

[doomteam1]

he doesn't know the meaning of life.

[Godlord]

@Doomteam1:

> he doesn't know the meaning of life.

Because there isn't any. Any philosopher would know that.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[VitinhooxD]

@Stephan:

> @Doomteam1:
>
> > he doesn't know the meaning of life.
>
> Because there isn't any. Any philosopher would know that.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

So you know everything :(

[ÃËœÂÃËœÂÃËœÂ]

Marsh are you still working on this?

[Lenton]

I hope he is. :(

[yorty]

Look at the date of his last post.

[In7el3ct]

As he's said before, marsh never really planned on releasing E++. He primarily created it so that he could learn C++. If you ask him really nicely and he already knows you, he _might[\i] give you the source, but it's so early into development that it's not really worth it._

[multigame]

C++.net is it the same as Visual C++?

[VitinhooxD]

I think no since C++ is not the same as C++.net

[AeroEBrown]

@Pinkeye:

> C++.net is it the same as Visual C++?

Yes.

Native C++ is what Vitin was thinking of.

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[mrmiguu]

C++.net is **not** a different language from C++. Don't let Stephan scare you. Be aware that C++.net only works for Windows since it uses the .NET framework to utilize more lib files and headers. If you're using Windows and don't want to be "corrupted by VC++" just download Dev-C++ and compile **clean code** yourself.

[Godlord]

@Miguu:

> C++.net is **not** a different language from C++. Don't let Stephan scare you. Be aware that C++.net only works for Windows since it uses the .NET framework to utilize more lib files and headers. If you're using Windows and don't want to be "corrupted by VC++" just download Dev-C++ and compile **clean code** yourself.

It actually is since it doesn't follow the official standards as far as I know, but then again C99 isn't supported either by Microsoft Visual C++ and the standards for C++ are funky anyway. Now if I am the one here scaring people, why do you use software that is considered ancient, obsolete and broken. There are only two compilers that are able to compile proper object code on Microsoft Windows when it comes to C/C++ and they are Microsoft Visual C++ and Intel's C/C++ compiler. I have yet to see a version of MinGW that supports unicode properly or i18n for that matter. Not to mention that supporting Direct3D9, Direct3D10 and Direct3D11 is a hell in MinGW. If you want working code, the only way to go is through Microsoft Visual C++ using native C/C++, which is definitely possible.

GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.

As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[AeroEBrown]

@Stephan:

> Not to mention that supporting Direct3D9, Direct3D10 and Direct3D11 is a hell in MinGW. If you want working code, the only way to go is through Microsoft Visual C++ using native C/C++, which is definitely possible.

That's what I use. MS Visual Studio with Native C++. I am also doing DirectX9.0c, which is TRULY a pain in any other program. Most of the help documents I see around the net say to use Visual Studio, as linking files is a LOT easier. (At least for me.)

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[In7el3ct]

@Stephan:

> GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
>
> As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I haven't found any evidence that gcc or ogl don't work properly in windows.

Oh, and I belive Dev-Cpp uses gcc as it's default compiler (as far as I know).

[Admiral Refuge]

@[Cake:

> In7el3ct link=topic=49188.msg707954#msg707954 date=1288664160]
> @Stephan:
>
> > GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
> >
> > As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I haven't found any evidence that gcc or ogl don't work properly in windows.
>
> Oh, and I belive Dev-Cpp uses gcc as it's default compiler (as far as I know).

I believe there was a topic awhile ago, someone challenged Stephan's ELI with their "ELI Lite"; it used less memory, had less issues, and seemed to be more efficient.  Stephan recompiled his ELI in VC++ (was previously using gcc) and it spiked in efficiency, or something like that.  Let me see if I can find the topic.
EDIT: Can't find the topic, it may have been stephan telling me updates on why he recompiled it, via MSN.

But yeah, I believe MinGW is GCC's port for Windows, as for VC++ working better, I think it's how the compiler utilizes some lower-level stuff that gcc can't; Stephan probably has a better explanation than I do.

[mrmiguu]

@Stephan:

> @Miguu:
>
> > C++.net is **not** a different language from C++. Don't let Stephan scare you. Be aware that C++.net only works for Windows since it uses the .NET framework to utilize more lib files and headers. If you're using Windows and don't want to be "corrupted by VC++" just download Dev-C++ and compile **clean code** yourself.
>
> It actually is since it doesn't follow the official standards as far as I know, but then again C99 isn't supported either by Microsoft Visual C++ and the standards for C++ are funky anyway. Now if I am the one here scaring people, **why do you use software that is considered ancient, obsolete and broken**. There are only two compilers that are able to compile proper object code on Microsoft Windows when it comes to C/C++ and they are Microsoft Visual C++ and Intel's C/C++ compiler. I have yet to see a version of MinGW that supports unicode properly or i18n for that matter. Not to mention that supporting Direct3D9, Direct3D10 and Direct3D11 is a hell in MinGW. If you want working code, the only way to go is through Microsoft Visual C++ using native C/C++, which is definitely possible.
>
> GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
>
> As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

I don't use VB6 anymore.

[Godlord]

@[Cake:

> In7el3ct link=topic=49188.msg707954#msg707954 date=1288664160]
> @Stephan:
>
> > GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
> >
> > As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I haven't found any evidence that gcc or ogl don't work properly in windows.
>
> Oh, and I belive Dev-Cpp uses gcc as it's default compiler (as far as I know).

[This article](http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_7/) describes what happened with OpenGL as for Windows Vista, whereas DirectX gets direct access (Microsoft likes to bias as much like Intel does). Dev-Cpp uses MinGW, which is a GCC port for Microsoft Windows. And if you never saw its problems, you never used it for real programming. I have had several functions missing in the standard WinAPI, I've always had problems with using GDI, GDI+ and even worse Direct3D9/Direct3D10/Direct3D11\. My solution to all those problems was to apply run-time linking, which immediately solved all the problems, except that most programmers cannot perform run-time linking, so I'd rather discourage programmers from using MinGW. Even with run-time linking however, you still have issues such as the complete lack of unicode support. It would also be almost pretty safe to say that libc and libstdcpp are broken as well for MinGW.

If you still disagree, then go ahead, but my experiences tell me MinGW is a pain.

@Miguu:

> @Stephan:
>
> > @Miguu:
> >
> > > C++.net is **not** a different language from C++. Don't let Stephan scare you. Be aware that C++.net only works for Windows since it uses the .NET framework to utilize more lib files and headers. If you're using Windows and don't want to be "corrupted by VC++" just download Dev-C++ and compile **clean code** yourself.
> >
> > It actually is since it doesn't follow the official standards as far as I know, but then again C99 isn't supported either by Microsoft Visual C++ and the standards for C++ are funky anyway. Now if I am the one here scaring people, **why do you use software that is considered ancient, obsolete and broken**. There are only two compilers that are able to compile proper object code on Microsoft Windows when it comes to C/C++ and they are Microsoft Visual C++ and Intel's C/C++ compiler. I have yet to see a version of MinGW that supports unicode properly or i18n for that matter. Not to mention that supporting Direct3D9, Direct3D10 and Direct3D11 is a hell in MinGW. If you want working code, the only way to go is through Microsoft Visual C++ using native C/C++, which is definitely possible.
> >
> > GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
> >
> > As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Stephan.
>
> I don't use VB6 anymore.

I was referring to Dev-Cpp as for ancient and obsolete and MinGW as for broken, which you could have concluded from my post.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Godlord]

@ÅÐмiядζ:

> @[Cake:
>
> > In7el3ct link=topic=49188.msg707954#msg707954 date=1288664160]
> > @Stephan:
> >
> > > GCC is a great compiler, just like OpenGL is a great API, but Microsoft Windows doesn't work properly with either of them.
> > >
> > > As a conclusion I'd say that you can go deal with your Dev-Cpp and MinGW set up, but don't bother other people with the flaws of everything in relation to that.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I haven't found any evidence that gcc or ogl don't work properly in windows.
> >
> > Oh, and I belive Dev-Cpp uses gcc as it's default compiler (as far as I know).
>
> I believe there was a topic awhile ago, someone challenged Stephan's ELI with their "ELI Lite"; it used less memory, had less issues, and seemed to be more efficient.  Stephan recompiled his ELI in VC++ (was previously using gcc) and it spiked in efficiency, or something like that.  Let me see if I can find the topic.
> EDIT: Can't find the topic, it may have been stephan telling me updates on why he recompiled it, via MSN.
>
> But yeah, I believe MinGW is GCC's port for Windows, as for VC++ working better, I think it's how the compiler utilizes some lower-level stuff that gcc can't; Stephan probably has a better explanation than I do.

There are various reasons why I rewrote ELI in Microsoft Visual C++. One of the reasons is that MinGW isn't UAC-aware and has some administration issues. Another reason would be all the interfacing and linking that worked poorly in MinGW, whereas I had no problems at all in Microsoft Visual C++. Third reason would probably be that I was able to produce 64-bit native applications as well, whereas MinGW64 was still in development at that time, and it still might be. Now I can continue my enumeration, but there are a lot of factors why I switched.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[mrmiguu]

@Stephan:

> I was referring to Dev-Cpp as for ancient and obsolete and MinGW as for broken, which you could have concluded from my post.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

Oh. I use VC++ as my compiler. I run the Visual Studio 2010 edition. I only use empty VC++ projects and start everything from scratch (or try to). No precompiled headers or anything of that sort. Are there other ways to avoid having VC++ be interjected into my project?

[Godlord]

That should be more than enough, actually.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[mrmiguu]

@Stephan:

> That should be more than enough, actually.
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

Alright. Now I feel better about myself.

[Guest]

it looks AWSOME!

[dthnote801]

Awesome, can't wait to see this thing in action (Even more so than the screenshots.)

[Varcangel]

Sorry for my bad English, this I wanted to ask why not release open source than they have done for others who know c + + can help in the project, I think that will go faster if more help and are contributing new ideas and lines of code, also if you are alone in this, we can not afford to be free, and not a ms is a new engine that should go with a new regulation and before you run out and put the payment, I like to have a piece that is free and together we can build under the rules of use that the owners imposed on us
Escuchar
Leer fonéticamente