Best C++ Compiler?

So in my efforts to get a job with Microsoft I'm going to back away from learning Visual C# .NET exclusively and learn C++ (I think this might be the best way to go). I wanted to know however because I picked up the book C++ for Dummies (Yeah I know...) and they have Dev C++ on the disk and wondered if that was a pretty good compiler?

If this book I have (I also have Visual C++ .NET Step by Step) isn't any good...someone want to recommend some beginner -> Intermediate -> Advance books/webpages?

eric_schmidt wrote:

And they STILL haven't implemented partial template specialization.

Wrong, VC supports partial template specialization as of VC7.1 (aka VC2003).

Cybermagellan wrote:

So in my efforts to get a job with Microsoft I'm going to back away from learning Visual C# .NET exclusively and learn C++ (I think this might be the best way to go). I wanted to know however because I picked up the book C++ for Dummies (Yeah I know...) and they have Dev C++ on the disk and wondered if that was a pretty good compiler?

Now there's a topic bound to create flamewars.

Dev C++ afaik is not a compiler but an IDE for g++. G++ is an excellent compiler, so is VC7.1 and up (both available free).

I'd just recommend staying as far away from Borland as you can. In my experience both their compiler and their IDE suck.

Beer28 wrote:

I vote for g++

BTW, it's a lower case g, unix names are lower case by default.

I know, but, start of the sentence and proper grammar and all.

cool, so in essence I am using a highly recommended compiler and don't have to worry about it?

Dev C++ is a great IDE with a great compiler.

If you want the best of the best, get the intel compiler and VS.

javamaker wrote:

Borland C++ doesn't suck, My school doesn't even touch VC++ except if you ask for it because it isnt ANSI Compliant..It's Borland C++ or DevC++..DevC++ uses the GCC Compiler..I think..that gotta be one of the best out there

I've had to use Borland C++ 5 when dealing with a project that required it. Besides being a terribly slow compiler with a dreadful optimizer that can't compile Boost normally without all kinds of Internal Compiler Errors, and a GUI that after a month of using it I still couldn't stomach, I didn't have any issues with it.

VC6 is not a good C++ compiler, I'll readily admit that. It predates the standard and its compliancy sucks. VC7.1 and VC8 are some of the most standards compliant compilers on the planet though. Of course, if compliancy is your number one concern, Comeau is the undisputed winner, being the only compiler in existence that implements 100% of the C++ standard, and the C99 standard to boot.

javamaker wrote:

VC++ 6 didn't even have a IDE!

Where did you get that idea? VC has had an IDE since version 1.

Sven Groot wrote:

javamaker wrote:VC++ 6 didn't even have a IDE!

Where did you get that idea? VC has had an IDE since version 1.

Hence the "V"

what's G++?

the GCC C++ compiler?

Nata1 wrote:

what's G++?

the GCC C++ compiler?

Yup:
GCC = GNU C Compiler or GNU Compiler Collection
G++ = GNU C++ Compiler

javamaker wrote:

It's not Visual, I forgot what video had it but I think it was the C# team saying I needed something Visual..I bought Visual C++ and it wasn't anything Visual...

I believe Visual C++ does include a command-line C++ compiler cl.exe

Intel's compilers are very good. But they're not cheap.

GCC/G++ is a very good compiler, but does not produce code as well-optimized as Intel's.

Microsoft's compiler is good, but not stellar.

For c-language compilers, those are the big three. Intel's compiler and GCC are both portable, and Intel made theirs gcc-compatible as well. Microsoft's compiler is, of course, not portable.

Cybermagellan wrote:

cool, so in essence I am using a highly recommended compiler and don't have to worry about it?

Worry about what?

Cairo wrote:

Cybermagellan wrote: cool, so in essence I am using a highly recommended compiler and don't have to worry about it?

Worry about what?

Well I was under the impression that when you build the compiler adds extra header info or something similar to that. I just want to make sure that I use one that is complient with any standards and doesn't thow all kinda useless into my project.

javamaker wrote:

well VC++ isn't known to be Compliant....60% compliant..maybe

More like 98% compliant.

Do your research.

Beer28 wrote:

pikatung wrote: javamaker wrote: well VC++ isn't known to be Compliant....60% compliant..maybe More like 98% compliant. Do your research.

what about all the fstream stuff they ripped out?
That compiler was about as compliant as a frozen popsicle. I still use it today for old customers.

Q: BradJones : VC++ is 98% compliant with the standard. What is the 2% that isn't compliant?

A: Brad the major features we are missing exception specifications, 2 phase name lookup and export
http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/transcripts/vstudio/vstudio_061203.aspx

The C++ product will be 98 percent compliant with ISO, according to Microsoft.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/08/021108hnoopsla.html

Even more important, Hodapp says that the new version of Visual C++ conforms to the ISO C++ specification at around the 98 percent level, which is a huge improvement over previous versions. The current version of Visual C++.NET is only 90 percent conforming, said Hodapp.
http://www.devx.com/cplus/Article/9937

Microsoft said its C++ compiler had been around 90 percent compliant with the standard. The Everett release will bring that closer to 98 percent, said Nick Hodapp, a Microsoft product manager.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-965046.html

Summary-
VC++ 6 and prior sucked at conformance
VC++ .NET had about 90% conformance
VC++ 2003 (and it seems 2005 also) has about 98% conformance

Need I google for more links?

javamaker wrote:

Beer28 wrote: pikatung wrote: javamaker wrote:well VC++ isn't known to be Compliant....60% compliant..maybe More like 98% compliant. Do your research. what about all the fstream stuff they ripped out? That compiler was about as compliant as a frozen popsicle. I still use it today for old customers.

he means the new VC++.NET I think, not the old VC++ 6..no one should use Managed C++.. if they do they should quit their job. it's not Stroustrup baby. Native C++ is.

Here is one article saying it is 98 percent complient:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/05/VisualC2005/

There are more if you google it.
Oh yeah, your article talks about 7.0, that is VC++ 2002, 2003 is much better.

 In terms of the IDE I think that VS is unmatched. I wish they had something as good as it on Linux.

At the OP:
Dev-Cpp is an IDE for Mingw which is a windows port of g++. I used to use it and the compiler is fine and the IDE, while not as good as VS is quite good for almost everything. If you feel like using the MS C++ compiler then get Codeblocks, you can use it with that compiler as well as the mingw one. I also prefer the IDE to Dev-Cpp.

javamaker wrote:

doesn't even say anything about ANSI..plus it's microsoft saying they're product is compliant

ANSI has the same standard as ISO.
And for other articles, look at the post above yours, he linked to some good ones.