Windows compiler/ide: suggestions?

I just prefer open source, and free software. And I like the idea of open source. I am not going to say it is a world saver, but it is a step in the right direction. Compared to one big monopoly and power mad control of the masses. It is just like the freedom of speech and being in a free country, it is just sad. That those two philosophies doesn´t go hand in hand even in my neck of the wood.

Open source, free movement, free software, free speech and last but not least free countries. What is so damn wrong about that ?

TheDeathcoaster: Mate, what I was thinking off, was that while you are punching code in, in a commercial product. Then you get proprietary code in, during the compiling stage. Maybe I am too philosophical . But anyway I use a load of either free software or open source, and that is Open Office for one example , Irfanview is another , Notepad++ is a third. And I use all of those to different stuff.
And I could probably mention a load of other products which are open source and free. That I enjoy using.

 

Well, using a commercial compiler doesn't really drop in any proprietary code in at the compile stage. I mean, it's up to you as the developer what libraries/assemblies you want to link to (Windows SDK, .NET, GTK+, whatever..)

All that happens at the compile stage is the code is, well, compiled Ofcourse the optimizations that can be toggled vary between compilers, but no proprietary code is injected in.

Unless I have misunderstood what you mean?

 

I am talking about the "compiling code routine" . That could be some proprietary code, not the compiling stage itself. If MS doesn´t say "oh god no, our code which does the compiling part is from and old, now open source program which we copied right in to our program. But then again, with every philosophy which includes the free your mind and etc. There will always be exceptions, or for that matter flaws. But again, it is a choice, between going open source vs. using commercial stuff all the way.
Anyway all this coding stuff, makes my head hurt, and I am not even a programmer. But I like reading about it, and giving inputs (some people could call it output ;-) ) .

But to make it in simple terms, some choose the commercial approach, others choose the open source approach. But the main thing is. If you get your goal, then it is not because of the product, but your code. And why haven´t you been online on msn for quite some time mate ?

 

To play devil's advocate for a moment here - boo fucking hoo. So your argument against open source software is that you might not see as much money? I'm afraid that's not a particularly convincing argument as to why I shouldn't use it, nor is it any kind of justification for why open source is inferior to closed-source, proprietary software.

It's a moot point anyway; with the rise of companies like Google whose revenue comes from advertising rather than sales, the trend for free software is going to become fairly standard in the years to come. For your sake we'd best hope I'm wrong on this, but I'd think it wise to look into alternative ways you can continue making a living. I hope that doesn't come across as arrogant, for what it's worth I'd be looking at the same thing in my (temp) job, as we're moving away from desktop support to thin client, and if I wasn't leaving in a few weeks anyway I'd probably be out of a job myself in the coming years. Times change, and we need to change with them.

 

Free software for every purpose is great for the developing world who can afford to abuse it, but for the rest of us, it can really complicate things in business and politics. smf has a great point about exporting free software; it really does give a handicap to overseas competition (in any field, not just software), even if only because their infrastructure is built upon it... It doesn't help that those who make the best use of it, often aren't in the position to contribute back either.

That said, mostly-free software does have it's place IMO. I think ideal outlets are strictly managed projects (with restrictive licenses to prevent abuse and lame forking) with the ability to make impact like operating systems and productivity software.

Anyways, back on topic, I generally use MinGW for it's light weight. I was a big fan of VS6's sensibilities, but now I just can't stand to chug along with .NET, a shame really.

 

The majority of people who choose open source software do it because they are cheap and can't afford to pay for closed source, again boo hoo.

With all the money flowing to china, india etc. Google aren't going to be making any money from advertsising because we're not going to have any.

I'm not saying that it's all open source softwares fault, but we're giving away our final natural resource. The more closed source the better IMO.

I'm not sure what wolverine's issue is with visual studio. It's the best Microsoft product and they give a slightly limited version of it away for free ( off the top of my head you can't target pocket pc with it, which is ironic because they used to give a product away for free that did ).

The 64 bit microsoft compiler is quicker to compile and produces better results than gcc ( results possibly depend on the application ). Picking a slower one for no reason seems very "clever".

 

smf, as I said every philosophy has its flaws. So potatoe vs. potaatoe. Who gives a flying fuck ;-)

 

So your point really is that you don't like things being given away for free because you can afford to pay for them? That's not the kind of imperative that would convince me to change my position.

1/ the "Western economic apocalypse" that's implied here is hardly a given, but I'd really not get into that debate.
2/ do you really think that Google only advertises in the West? That's pretty naive.

I've sat here and contemplated this for a while, it's kind of an interesting one. From my perspective it's like someone's finally stopped charging me for drinking water. I'm supposed to kick up a fuss and demand to pay? As far as I'm concerned, the people who used to charge for this water need to figure out a new revenue model.

 

Wow, all I can say is take a micro/macro economics course. Nothing is free. Ever. Period. There is always a cost. For open source software, the cost may not be apparent but could include legacy code maintenance problems, compatibility issues and slow updates. Of course, this happens with retail software, but there is a big difference when you have someone paid to write code and release software versus someone who only does it when he or she wants to.

In the end, it simply comes down to what you want it to do, and how much you want to pay for it.

 

Except when the software I'm using doesn't have any legacy code issues, has higher compatibility than anything else, and is frequently updated, like VLC. If you really want to attack open source software, say something like "the monetary gains lose out when you consider the time and expertise involved in maintaining such a system", at least that would be applicable to linux, apache etc. Just about every major piece of software I use at home is free, and often open source -VLC, VNC, Firefox, Thunderbird, 7zip, Free Download Manager, Comodo Firewall, Avast, just as examples- and there really aren't many pay options in each of those areas which are significantly better, or worth the expenditure to me. Of course these aren't all created entirely out of the unpaid sweat of another man's brow, but that highlights exactly my point - the people who create this software are often making a living from it without charging me. I think that's a wonderful situation, maybe you don't.

There are obvious examples where you need to pay in order to receive software which performs the task you expect. Big-budget games and A/V editing software spring to mind. For day-to-day desktop stuff, though, I'm pretty happy with my suite of free software, and in my experience it performs as well or better than the pay options. I'm certainly willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm not attacking OSS, simply stating that there may be hidden costs. If you find a piece of software that you like and it works for you and your budget, that's great. The problem comes when people think that ALL software must be open source or free just because some is. The software industry as a whole (and most other industries) simply cannot support that, at least not for the foreseeable future.

 

No, I find the locust model a long term problem. Someone else is paying for the software you are using, sounds great? What about when they decide they want free software too?

I'm sure people thought booking on cheap airlines was a good thing, well it is until they go bankrupt and you're either sitting at home moaning you can't go on holiday or in an airport trying to get home.

I use some open source software and some commercial software. I generally use the best for the job. Which often involves Micrsoft products. I tend to find Linux works ok for limited devices that I don't need to do much ( my tv, router, network storage uses Linux ). Although proprietary routers used to be better and more stable.

If we lived in some form of commune and everybody was fair then open source software for everything would work great.

The west lowers the price of it's major export while it's major imports are putting their prices up. Sounds real clever.