C Compilers

[IAmHawtness]

Originally Posted by Ian*

Because people trash C# here since they fail at adding "features" to their private servers so they blame the language for their problems.

Oh, right.. I almost forgot this was elitepvpers for a while there, sorry.

[Ian*]

Originally Posted by IAmHawtness

Oh, right.. I almost forgot this was elitepvpers for a while there, sorry.

You better be

[bone-you]

Originally Posted by Ian*

Because people trash C# here since they fail at adding "features" to their private servers so they blame the language for their problems.

Not all of us "bashers" are a fail at the language. It is a RAD language and not designed for this. Can it do it? Yea. I can also write a CO Server in mirc scripting. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[xScott]

Originally Posted by bone-you

Not all of us "bashers" are a fail at the language. It is a RAD language and not designed for this. Can it do it? Yea. I can also write a CO Server in mirc scripting. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

like this?

 Spoiler

[KraHen]

Regarding memory+C#, this is worth a checkout IMO


As for C++ compilers, it depends on the project. On Windows I personally prefer MinGW(or GCC, as you like it).

[InfamousNoone]

Originally Posted by KraHen

Regarding memory+C#, this is worth a checkout IMO


As for C++ compilers, it depends on the project. On Windows I personally prefer MinGW(or GCC, as you like it).

What good reason is there for using GCC on Windows over VSC++ (Microsoft's compiler)?
GCC's inline assembly is horrid in comparisons to Microsoft's inline assembler which supports Intel's syntax.

[KraHen]

1. In school we`re learning MinGW
2. I personally don`t use ASM frequently in my code, and when I do, AT&T doesn`t make that big of a difference
3. For some reason the fact that the compiler is bound to Microsoft bugs me

It`s in 90% a personal choice

[unknownone]

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone

What good reason is there for using GCC on Windows over VSC++ (Microsoft's compiler)?
GCC's inline assembly is horrid in comparisons to Microsoft's inline assembler which supports Intel's syntax.

I could list many, but a clear obvious one is that Microsoft does not fully support C99 - the current version of the C standard. Let's not even mention the many many cases where it diverts from the C and C++ standards anyway.

The argument about ASM syntax is nonsense, the fact that is intel's syntax means nothing - there are other architectures out there. Like KraHen mentioned, you rarely do use embedded asm (you should have separate asm files anyway). In any event, gcc lets you choose which ASM syntax you want with the -masm compiler switch. att is default, but you can use intel.

The main argument for not using MSVC is that you want to write portable code. By default, visual studio makes this very difficult for you, so if you're planning on writing windows applications that will only ever run on windows, you might benefit from features Visual Studio has to offer. In any other case, you would spend more time configuring your project for other platforms, that any productivity gains from VS are obsolete.

[InfamousNoone]

Originally Posted by unknownone

The argument about ASM syntax is nonsense, the fact that is intel's syntax means nothing - there are other architectures out there. Like KraHen mentioned, you rarely do use embedded asm (you should have separate asm files anyway). In any event, gcc lets you choose which ASM syntax you want with the -masm compiler switch. att is default, but you can use intel.

I wasn't aware of this. You just made life for me and Dan a lot simpler, lol. We were working on coding on a Linux using the GCC compiler and were looking at the AT&T assembly syntax and were thinking to ourselves fuck life. But, I assume even using the Intel syntax, you still have to do it in that retarded format-string style?

Originally Posted by unknownone

The main argument for not using MSVC is that you want to write portable code. By default, visual studio makes this very difficult for you, so if you're planning on writing windows applications that will only ever run on windows, you might benefit from features Visual Studio has to offer. In any other case, you would spend more time configuring your project for other platforms, that any productivity gains from VS are obsolete.

Yeah, I had a feeling the whole portable code issue would come up. He indicated that he was writing on Windows (so I made the assumption he was writing for Windows, as I assumed he'd only be developing for himself). It's only recently where I've had to start thinking cross-platform (damn Dan...).

[KraHen]

It is true that I`m testing my code on Windows but I still want my code to run on linux without or with minor modifications.

P.S. Java ftw. I know you love it.