I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
(http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.


-S.

S. Chancellor wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
> (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.

If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a
look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice.
It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and
has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on
Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not
tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface.

Roald

S. Chancellor skrev:
> I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
> (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.
> 
Bloodshed Dev-C++ have one major disadvantage; it is written in Delphi. I like Delphi myself, but as a detoxed Windows user I see huge portability problems.

A port to Linux could be possible using Kylix, but then only on Intel hardware. Using Freepascal and Lazarus is another option, but Lazarus is not quite as mature as one would like.

So my vote is no on this one :(.

// Fredrik

Fredrik Olsson wrote:
> S. Chancellor skrev:
>> I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
>> (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.
>>
> Bloodshed Dev-C++ have one major disadvantage; it is written in Delphi. I like Delphi myself, but as a detoxed Windows user I see huge portability problems.
> 
> A port to Linux could be possible using Kylix, but then only on Intel hardware. Using Freepascal and Lazarus is another option, but Lazarus is not quite as mature as one would like.
> 
> So my vote is no on this one :(.
> 
> // Fredrik

One other downside is that once installed it is almost impossible to remove! There is no Uninstall Start-menu item, no "uninstall.exe" in the program directory, no entry in Add/Removes Programs, and it plops files down in hidden directories and makes Registry entries, so simply deleting the program directory is no good. There are a few forum entries around the net on how to remove it manually, which is a complicated process. I wish I had known this before I tried it out!

Roald Ribe wrote:
> S. Chancellor wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
>> (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.
> 
> 
> If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a
> look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice.
> It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and
> has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on
> Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not
> tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface.
> 
> Roald
Codeblocks SVN now has DMD & GDC support for windows.  Doesn't support the /++ & ++/ comments tho.

Roald Ribe wrote:

> If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a
> look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice.
> It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and
> has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on
> Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not
> tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface.

I can also recommend Code::Blocks. It can import Dev-C++ projects, too.

It is using the wxWidgets interface library, making it very portable.
There is a Mac OS X port of Code::Blocks in progress, by the way... ;-)

--anders

On 2006-02-12 19:55:03 -0800, Roald Ribe <rr.nospam@nospam.teikom.no> said:

> S. Chancellor wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be possible to easily convert this package to use gdc instead of gcc?  Changing the syntax coloring over seems trivial.
>> (http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html)  An integrated package like this is very conducive to attracting developers.
> 
> If you are seriously looking into an IDE, I would suggest having a
> look at Code::Blocks (www.codeblocks.org) before making a choice.
> It already supports the Digital Mars C/C++ compiler and GCC, and
> has a structure to add additional compilers. It already runs on
> Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. I can not vouch for the quality (have not
> tested it much) but it looks impressive on the surface.
> 
> Roald


My interest in it is providing a "Whole D Package" for people.  Like ActivePython, Dev-C++ or likewise.  It would be a real boon to people to have this.

-S,

> 
> My interest in it is providing a "Whole D Package" for people.  Like ActivePython, Dev-C++ or likewise.  It would be a real boon to people to have this.
>

Yes Code::Blocks would be a perfect IDE for such a packaged. You could compile GDC and distribute it with Code::Blocks and also have DMD.

Thought Code::Blocks support for D needs lots of work too it has bugs and it's not full. Unfortunately I cannot help much myself yet.