I dont know what ide to use to learn c++ im on lubuntu 15.01 what does /g// use?
>>54448673
Visual Studio is the best IDE for C and C++
Emacs plus command line.
I use Qt Creator for C++, and i heard CLion is great for C development.
>>54448699
>t. Rajesh.
>>54448673
Visual studio
>>54448699
>>54449002
Which version and why?
>>54448673
>tfw i program in gedit
>>54448673
Vim + Linux utils
>>54449458
>Linux utils
tech illiterate spotted
>>54448673
Qt Creator
Codelite
Code::Blocks
Visual Studio Code
Geany
Vim
Emacs
>>54448673
CLion
>>54449449
You and me both brother.
>>54449458
>Linux utils
oh fuck off already
I keep cutting the fat and went from VS to codeblocks to vim. Vim master race.
>>54448673
On Linux you normally don't use an IDE.
Use an editor like VIM or Atom.
It's much more comfortable than every IDE.
Trust me.
>>54449033
2013/2015. 2010 is lagshit and 2008 is too old.
>>54450761
He's asking for an IDE.
>>54448986
>use a program written in Java to develop for C
I don't have an image for batshit retarded, so here you go.
>>54451416
Vim can be an IDE if you have the patience to install the right plugins.
>>54448699
>best IDE for C
good one
>>54451435
If it works, it works. As long as they don't have to maintain it, and it works exactly as desired. Why should they even care what it was written in?
>>54448986
Yeah, QtCreator is pretty good. I really like it. I've heard CLion is good, but I'm reluctant to make the switch since QtCreator works so well for me. Plus it's FOSS, so you /g/ would approve more.
>>54449033
I use 15 not 2015 - the 15 which is in preview and works extraordinarily well.
>>54452986
In my experience, Microsoft's C++ compiler produces horrible diagnostics, compared to Clang. It makes Clang much easier to use.
Also, Microsoft's C compiler isn't even C99 compliant, so it's very outdated and not worth using.
>>54448673
everyone i know and work with uses VIM
and people i know who used IDEs switched to VIM later
>>54448673
Use Gedit or Kedit. You dont need an ide. You need to learn c++. Any text editor that highlights your code then a terminal to compile will be fine.
>>54449033
Easy to install, easy to use.
I don't need to fuck around with an IDE for 3 days setting up plug ins and external packages. I just want to fucking code. Visual Studio generally lets me do that without much trouble.
>>54453680
>I don't need to fuck around with an IDE for 3 days setting up plug ins and external packages. I just want to fucking code
You could also just not use an IDE.
>>54448673
Geany of coarse
>>54451435
This is a serious issue. I've heard if you do this, the java code will leak out and infect your compiled C code.
I use Visual Studio 2015 for C++.
I don't dream of programming in C.
>>54448673
KDevelop
>>54453810
It's hard to tell if you're serious or not, so I'm going to go ahead and take the bait and tell you anyway: If you use your own compiler then there's no need to put a tin foil hat on.
>>54453825
Kdevelop is pretty mediocre. It's like Notepad++ without the polish. I can't find anything that is like Notpad++ on Linux though, so I use Kdevelop.
>>54453835
Use Kate for that
>>54453714
Enjoy debugging then.
From the professionals I've asked, there doesn't exist a debugger better than Visual Studio.
Hell, there isn't a debugger that even matches Visual Studio.
>>54453829
>It's hard to tell if you're serious or not
Is it really though?
>>54453845
>Enjoy debugging then
GDB is fine.
>there doesn't exist a debugger better than Visual Studio.
Is there a way in the debugger to deference an array stored as a pointer? I end up getting stuck looking at things like this and being totally unable to read their values, whereas with GDB, you can execute arbitrary C expressions and print the value.
>>54448673
>a text editor
>a compiler
This is what you need. Do not waste time with IDEs. When you have a good understanding of what EMACS or VIM can do for you, then you may use one or the other--not both, because that's against the law.
>>54453965
You should probably get a debugger, like GDB, too.
>>54453902
The debugger isn't going to know that a pointer is being used as an array any more than your compiler does.
If that's what you want, stop using raw pointers. Then it will work.
>>54454649
>The debugger isn't going to know that a pointer is being used as an array any more than your compiler does.
Which is why that feature in GDB that allows me to do this is very useful...
>stop using raw pointers
If I have to stop using one of the basic language features to use a debugger, it's not a very good debugger.
