After trying many IDEs on both Linux and Windows my own preference is Visual Studio.
As for the C++ support, MS are doing much better than before few years when they were not paying much attention. See this new blog post http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/08/21/c-11-14-features-in-visual-studio-14-ctp3.aspx Visual C++ 2013 is not up to clang or gcc conformance level, but not that broken. clang-cl would be great *except* it knows how to produce debug lines (codeview) but not full debug information (pdb files), so no real debugging. That's a real showstopper. Yaron 2014-08-23 23:55 GMT+03:00 DeadMG <wolfeinst...@gmail.com>: > MSVC survives because there's no effective competition- it's like > communications providers in the United States or political parties in > China. The alternatives like GCC have no decent development environments > for them, and Clang has the bonus of not being mature w.r.t. things like > Standard libraries. The reality is, there's nowhere to go *but* MSVC. This > stuff is the major reason why I'd positively love clang-cl. As soon as that > is done, then support for cl can probably be entirely dropped and the state > of the available compilers will be drastically improved. > > Microsoft *is* issuing more and more out-of-band bugfix updates. But the > current state for VS2013 is still that most bugfixes will hit in VS "14" > (currently projected for 2015). > > > On 23 August 2014 21:24, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 22 August 2014 20:18, Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es> wrote: >> > I second this. My experience with VS is that new features are usually >> > broken if you go beyond the simple cases. And the roadmaps have little >> > credibility, based on a continuous flow of disappointments since... >> > forever. >> >> Is there any interest from Microsoft to actually fix those problems, >> or is that their policy that what's there is there? The latter seems >> to be their policy on other products, and for what I know, VS too. I >> ask that because holding on partial and broken support that will never >> be fixed or completed is kind of backwards. >> >> I'm not a Windows guy, but I wonder why so many people use MSVC if the >> support is so patchy and hopeless as most people seem to imply. Also, >> compiling Clang with MSVC and making Clang MSVC compatible are two >> completely different things. A commercial toolchain based on MSVC >> compatibility doesn't necessarily need to be compiled with MSVC >> itself. >> >> Or maybe the Windows environment is so alien that I'm basing my points >> on completely unreasonable assumptions... >> >> cheers, >> -renato >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-...@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
