Comments for Unrefined Awesome

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by lolex

lolex — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:44:00 +0000

btw, was just looking at some other posts of yours and realized something - we’re kinda the same. i.e. both [i assume you are] into coding and like awesome music [read: metal]. plus i was in melbourne for just over 3 years from 2004-2008. miss the party/music scene there. returning next year.

anyways, not trying to be that weird guy on your blog.

_lolex.

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by lolex

lolex — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:27:45 +0000

this showed up as a comment on my blog, so i followed it and boy am i glad i did. yes, i still use dev-c++. however, it was a far better alternative than using the [extremely] outdated turbo c++ which most of my classmates still use - since it was provided to us by our c teacher, apparently it must be the best for coding *roll eyes*.

thank you for providing me with alternatives. i’m downloading microsoft visual c++ as i type this.

_lolex.

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by Larry Ullman's Blog » C++ Development Tools

Larry Ullman's Blog » C++ Development Tools — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:50:23 +0000

[...] Windows regularly, so couldn’t make a recommend on that myself), I came across a post about why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++. That writer recommended Programmer’s Notepad, Code::Blocks (which also runs on Mac OS X and [...]

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by Jason

Jason — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:46:30 +0000

Or you could do the same thing with Code::Blocks and have an IDE and compiler that ISN’T outdated and buggy. Sorry, but I just don’t think your argument holds much water, Code::Blocks is a viable, and in my opinion superior alternative to Dev-C++.

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by Me

Me — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:58:42 +0000

Dev-C++ can be zipped, with compiler, with SDL and other libraries included, in a zip file of less than 20MB.

Unzip that on any MS Windows computer, and BOOM! You’ve got a working IDE + compiler + all libs you need with 5 seconds of work.

For someone who develops in Linux and just wants to deploy something on various Windows computers now and then without any compiler or whatever installed on them, such a zipped Dev-C++ is the only sane solution!

Dev-C++ rocks

Comment on Monetizing Flash Games by Play Miniclip Games

Play Miniclip Games — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:13:37 +0000

I am currently using Mochi ads and you must host the games on your own server if you want to get ads revshare

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by Dragonsoulj

Dragonsoulj — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:30:11 +0000

Going on free alternatives, you could install GCC or MinGW with GCC and compile from the command line. This would help if you planned to move to Linux and use the terminal.

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by A word on IDE’s « ArthY303

A word on IDE’s « ArthY303 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:44:03 +0000

[...] because it hasn’t been updated since 2005 and the compiler that comes with it is outdated. This article summarizes best why you should not use Dev [...]

Comment on Disabling unwanted Facebook notifications by Disabling Unwanted Facebook Notifications Redux « Unrefined Awesome

Disabling Unwanted Facebook Notifications Redux « Unrefined Awesome — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:42:59 +0000

[...] recently posted about Disabling Unwanted Facebook Notifications with a few tips for those who don’t like all the messages and news items produced by [...]

Comment on Why you shouldn’t use Dev-C++ by GoDK

GoDK — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:59:50 +0000

Embarcadero For The Win.

C++ Builder is miles above MSVC in my opinion.
Of course it’s not free, but it is the only reasonable “move up” for when you’re ready for a /real/ production tool.

Quality has a pricetag.

Another alternative to Code::Blocks is Aptana Studio.
It pretty much does everything, and supports everything from Java and Python to Ruby and Groovy.
It’s a one-stop-shop with a very nice interface.