| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 5 | |
Please pardon my frustration. I'm so sick of VC6!!! I want a modern C++ compiler!! I thought VC7 would be better but it doesn't even work with Qt. I need a good IDE, a more standard-compliant compiler, and Qt compatability. Does anyone know of a viable alternative to the MS VC6? I don't think C++ Builder builds Qt apps. Only VCL and CLX. What about CodeWarrior? Any suggestions? Craig
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 12:29 pm, Craig Black wrote: > Please pardon my frustration. I'm so sick of VC6!!! I want a modern C++ > compiler!! I thought VC7 would be better but it doesn't even work with Qt. > I need a good IDE, a more standard-compliant compiler, and Qt > compatability. > > Does anyone know of a viable alternative to the MS VC6? I don't think C++ > Builder builds Qt apps. Only VCL and CLX. What about CodeWarrior? Any > suggestions? You may want to check out Intel's C/C++ compiler. That may be your best bet. I hear that gcc 3.0.x is fairly C++-compliant but I don't know anyone who has actually used it yet.
Correct me if I am wrong but gcc is only available under the cygwin environment. This means we cannot use (I am assuming) compile Qt 3.0 for Windows with gcc. Salman --- Christopher Thompson <christ@axionspatial.com> > I hear that gcc 3.0.x is fairly C++-compliant but I > don't know anyone who > has actually used it yet. > > -- > List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
> You may want to check out Intel's C/C++ compiler. That may be > your best bet. > I hear that gcc 3.0.x is fairly C++-compliant but I don't know > anyone who > has actually used it yet. The latest gcc that ships with cygwin is very good from a standards compliance point of view - it will compile lots of libraries (e.g. Boost, Spirit, etc.) that need partial template specialisation without problems. I've not personally tried to compile Qt/windows with it, but the (oldish) version of tmake I have seems to mention it, so it is possibly worth investigating. Intel C++ definitely works for Qt, without any problems at all, and generates somewhat better code too. It integrates perfectly with VC6, but with the proviso that you MUST NOT have anything else installed that also tries the same trick, e.g. Bounds Checker. (BC won't install if you have Intel installed by the way - I know, I spent ages trying a few months ago). I'm currently (in a .NET project, not Qt) using VC7 at work. It looks pretty, the .NET integration is nice, the .NET class library is way better than any of MS's previous attempts (its event handling looks oddly reminiscent of Qt's signal/slot metaphor, though it's less powerful). However, the VC7 C++ compiler is pretty sucky - I've been hit by a couple of code generation bugs so far. It won't compile Boost (at all, as far as I can tell). No partial template specialisation support. The debugger is flaky under Win2k (can't speak for other platforms) - if you close a console app by clicking its close box while it is halted at a breakpoint, the IDE hangs maybe one time in two. The code it generates feels a bit slow - I can't really put my finger on it, but I'd really like to do some back-to-back comparisons. It may be the longer load time due to MSIL JIT compilation, I'm not sure. For Windows development under Qt, I usually just use the cygwin command line and a copy of the gvim windows port. I always found that the MSVC IDE was more trouble than it was worth for editing Qt source. If you hack the config files, gvim does syntax colouring very nicely, and it is possible to add the extra Qt-isms like slot and emit so that they get coloured too. Changing the default (horrible) font to Lucida Console, and going for a white on black scheme really worked for me (your mileage may vary). Sarah
<<< text/html: EXCLUDED >>>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 10:31:55AM +0100, Henrik Johnson wrote: > Still they both have a pretty steep initial learning curve. I > recently had a debate on what was most user unfriendly CTRL-X+CTRL-C or > ESC+:+q+! for exiting the application. No matter what the answer neither > can really be called simple :). no matter they're not called simple, they're still the most powerful ones you can find on the planet now, once you get in, you can't get out I'd suggest forgetting all this RAD IDE Visual mega super all-in-one bull**it, and taking a moment and looking at what the real hackers use... don't forget that editor is still the most frequently used piece of software coders need, and also don't forget that the best things are for free (love, nature, etc., fill in your own), and that it *IS* worth spending some time climbing the steep learning curve..., it'll return back later, how simple... > /Mauritz > Underscore AB regards, martin -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
<<< text/html: EXCLUDED >>>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:17:03PM +0100, Henrik Johnson wrote: > You don't have to sell this to me :). I do all my work in Emacs except > for some documentation which I still need to resort to some kind of > office like tool. sure I didn't want to tell you, rather to the list, your email just served as a nice quote :-) > > /Mauritz > Underscore AB rgds, martin -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Mauritz wrote: > You may want to check out Intel's C/C++ compiler. That may be >your best bet. > I hear that gcc 3.0.x is fairly C++-compliant but I don't know >anyone who >has actually used it yet. Definitely agree - Intel is solid and IMO an excellent compiler. I'd also wholeheartedly recommend taking a look at Intel's VTune profiler, which is quite simply the best profiler I've ever seen, and also works with Qt. >I off course have to add the obligatory. Emacs is also available in a native Windows version >which is also a very nice IDE if you are used to it. Still they both have a pretty steep >initial learning curve. I recently had a debate on what was most user unfriendly CTRL-X+CTRL- >C or ESC+:+q+! for exiting the application. No matter what the answer neither can really be >called simple :). Yes, indeed. Editors are such a personal thing. It is a shame, is it not, that the two most popular varieties of editor (vi influenced and emacs influenced) are both frankly quite insane pieces of design! Sarah
Hi I am using a combination of VC 6 and Intel C++. Intel C++ plug into the VC++ IDE At 13:29 12/03/2002 -0600, Craig Black wrote: >Please pardon my frustration. I'm so sick of VC6!!! I want a modern C++ >compiler!! I thought VC7 would be better but it doesn't even work with Qt. >I need a good IDE, a more standard-compliant compiler, and Qt compatability. > >Does anyone know of a viable alternative to the MS VC6? I don't think C++ >Builder builds Qt apps. Only VCL and CLX. It can be used to build Qt/C++ apps >What about CodeWarrior? Any >suggestions? I have tried CodeWarrior, but I could not get on with it since it does not appear to be able handle moc in the same way VC++ does. >Craig > >-- >List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com Regards John, ----- john@theKompany.com http://www.theKompany.com
The Intel compiler may be much better than VC++. However, I evaluated it a few months ago with MSVC6 IDE. I found that it still uses the Microsoft compiler to produce dependency information. This is a crippling problem, because MSVC6 doesn't compile the kind of code that I aspire to write, seeing it is not standards compiant. Thus, the intel compiler will not compile anything that VC++ will not compile because it still uses it to produce dependency information. Anyway, that's what I ran into when I evaluated it. -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Thompson [mailto:christ@axionspatial.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:59 PM To: cblack@ara.com; qt-interest@trolltech.com Subject: Re: Alternatives to VC++ IDE? On Tuesday 12 March 2002 12:29 pm, Craig Black wrote: > Please pardon my frustration. I'm so sick of VC6!!! I want a modern C++ > compiler!! I thought VC7 would be better but it doesn't even work with Qt. > I need a good IDE, a more standard-compliant compiler, and Qt > compatability. > > Does anyone know of a viable alternative to the MS VC6? I don't think C++ > Builder builds Qt apps. Only VCL and CLX. What about CodeWarrior? Any > suggestions? You may want to check out Intel's C/C++ compiler. That may be your best bet. I hear that gcc 3.0.x is fairly C++-compliant but I don't know anyone who has actually used it yet.
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:22 pm, Craig Black wrote: > The Intel compiler may be much better than VC++. However, I evaluated it a > few months ago with MSVC6 IDE. I found that it still uses the Microsoft > compiler to produce dependency information. This is a crippling problem, > because MSVC6 doesn't compile the kind of code that I aspire to write, > seeing it is not standards compiant. Thus, the intel compiler will not Hhhmm. Well, remember that not one single C++ compiler is fully compliant with the latest C++ standards (or, afaik, any official C++ standard). It is a very complex standard. > compile anything that VC++ will not compile because it still uses it to > produce dependency information. Anyway, that's what I ran into when I > evaluated it. Did you try it using makefiles?
> > compile anything that VC++ will not compile because it still uses it to > > produce dependency information. Anyway, that's what I ran into when I > > evaluated it. > The only part of the compiler that is being used to produce dependency info is the pre-compiler, yes? And the pre-compiler doesn't look at any (or at least doesn't process any) C/C++ syntax - it just looks for it's own directives. So, I would think you would be able to write the C++ to the back-end compiler, even though you may have to write to the MSVC pre-compiler. My 2c rickb
>The only part of the compiler that is being used to produce >dependency info is the pre-compiler, yes? And the pre-> >compiler doesn't >look at any (or at least doesn't process any) C/C++ syntax - >it just looks for it's own directives. Not when I evaluated Intel C++. It was fully installed. I tried to compile a program and got an error from the MSVC++ compiler as it parsed through my code to generate dependency information. Since MSVC failed, the compilation could not continue. The Intel C++ didn't even get a chance to start. If you don't believe me evaluate it for yourself for free. And try something like partial specialization on a template. -----Original Message----- From: owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com [mailto:owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com]On Behalf Of Rick Berger Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:08 PM To: qt-interest@trolltech.com Subject: RE: Alternatives to VC++ IDE? > > compile anything that VC++ will not compile because it still uses it to > > produce dependency information. Anyway, that's what I ran into when I > > evaluated it. > So, I would think you would be able to write the C++ to the back-end compiler, even though you may have to write to the MSVC pre-compiler. My 2c rickb -- [ signature omitted ]
At 18:12 12/03/2002 -0600, Craig Black wrote: > >The only part of the compiler that is being used to produce > >dependency info is the pre-compiler, yes? And the pre-> > >compiler doesn't > >look at any (or at least doesn't process any) C/C++ syntax - > >it just looks for it's own directives. > >Not when I evaluated Intel C++. It was fully installed. I tried to compile a >program and got an error from the MSVC++ compiler as it parsed through my >code to generate dependency information. Since MSVC failed, the compilation >could not continue. The Intel C++ didn't even get a chance to start. If you >don't believe me evaluate it for yourself for free. And try something like >partial specialization on a template. All I can say is that using Intel C++ in place of MSVC overcame the problems I was having. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com >[mailto:owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com]On Behalf Of Rick Berger >Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:08 PM >To: qt-interest@trolltech.com >Subject: RE: Alternatives to VC++ IDE? > > > > > compile anything that VC++ will not compile because it still uses it to > > > produce dependency information. Anyway, that's what I ran into when I > > > evaluated it. > > >So, I would think you would be able to write the C++ to the back-end >compiler, even though you may have to write to the MSVC >pre-compiler. > >My 2c >rickb > >-- >List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com > >-- >List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com Regards John, ----- john@theKompany.com http://www.theKompany.com