> Right now I've been using Dev-Cpp for developing my modeler.  It's 
> getting the job done.
> 
> The only real issue with Dev-Cpp is that the fine folks at bloodshed.net 
> haven't updated the compiler since 2005, whereas Watcom is still being 
> supported.
> 
> The primary issue I have with OpenWatcom is that apparently the floating 
> point library that comes with it doesn't include single-precision 
> version of the functions, only doubles.  That isn't a show-stopper; 
> although the objects in my project which use floats use single-precision 
> values (a space issue, since there may be many thousands of them in a 
> project), the library doesn't get called that much, so the casting and 
> re-casting isn't hurting performance.
> 
> Watcom also has a feature that appears to be lacking in Dev-Cpp, which 
> is the warnings for unused local variables (not vital, but it's nice for 
> this former C64 programmer to know where a wasted byte may be lurking in 
> my code); so that's a point in its favor.
> 
> (As an aside, the IDE in lcc-win32 has a feature that flags unrecognized 
> symbols (by underlining them); that helped get typos fixed more quickly.)
> 
> The question I haven't answered yet is the code size issue; does anyone 
> know if OW executables are notably larger or smaller than Dev-Cpp 
> executables?
> 
> Regards,
> John

I personally use MinGW (same compiler Dev-C++ uses), a bash shell, and 
gVim. Yes, on Windows.

Post a reply to this message