It may not have as comprehensive a feature set as VS. But it's an excellent hackable IDE for enthusiasts.
It may not have as comprehensive a feature set as VS. But it's an excellent hackable IDE for enthusiasts.
[0]: https://scattered-thoughts.net/writing/looking-for-debugger/
[1]: https://scattered-thoughts.net/writing/looking-for-debugger-...
I'm sure there are many people saying "works on my machine", but it never worked on any of mine, sadly. Visual Studio simply works and has a nice, intuitive interface. Pressing F10 to step over will always be better than typing something in the gdb command line and hitting Enter.
I tried CLion and bugs / crashes with debugging and some other parts (do not remember exactly as it's been a while) prevented me from using it. Was not fond of its sluggishness either.
I think it must just be one of those things where the tool you use shapes the way you work, and so then when you switch tools, but try to work in the same way, you get frustrated.
source debugging is a minor component of GUI debuggers.
Having a graphical watch window with multiple variables, looking at registers in a different window while stepping through etc. is invaluable to me.
Also stuff like losing mental context because of dumping a long stack in the same window where I was just inspecting disassembly is frigging painful.
But I agree about familiarity bias in most cases.
Sometimes I feel they should rebrand it, because many people are blocked by the Qt name.
Dev C++ might be faster in this particular matter (been a very big while since I've used it so can't really verify) but I would not trade loosing 3 seconds a day for the whole shebang of features that are way more robust and plentiful in Visual Studio.
Not to mention, DevC++ was free. VS was not.
I'm not saying Dev C++ is better than VS. It was just a solid choice for it's loyal community of users.