Eclipse Project Releases CDT 2.0 45
Torulf writes "I just ran across an announcement on the Eclipse project frontpage that they have released CDT 2.0. CDT is the C/C++ development project at Eclipse. The CDT provides a full IDE that uses gcc for compiling. Find out what's new in this version here. Downloads available."
Thank you IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank you IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see many photo editors eclipse's future. The base conmponents are too much biased towards its prime target: be an IDE.
Re:Thank you IBM (Score:5, Informative)
No so anymore. They very much want Eclipse to be useful as a general framework for building arbitrary applications. For Eclipse 3.0, the team made a good effort to seperate out the basic platform functionality from the IDE aspects.
Take a look at the "Rich Client Platform" notes in the New and Noteworthy [eclipse.org] docs for Eclipse 3.0.
Re:Thank you IBM (Score:3, Funny)
correct link (Score:4, Informative)
check those urls!
Re:correct link (Score:2)
Eclipsenet (Score:4, Funny)
Eventually it becomes self-aware and launches the nukes.
Then it's all-out war: Man vs. Eclipse. (cue the music [geocities.com])
Re:Eclipsenet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Eclipsenet (Score:1)
yeah, just like it is now with Emacs...
Re:Eclipsenet (Score:4, Funny)
eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate java!!
screenshots of my editor [rubyforge.org]
judge yourself... does eclipse really sux?
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
I know it has refactoring capabilities, what worries me about it, is that eclipse are heavy and big.
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
Eclipse are just huge.. and lacks a good editor.
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2)
Anyway, you might want to check out the various efforts at getting eclipse compilied with gcj. IMHO, it's a seriously cool project, and an indication of what could be done if sun OS'ed java..
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
do you know if gcj actually can launch eclipse?
Im not really uptodate with gcj.. (will check gcj out).
Thanks for the hint
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2, Informative)
GCJ Eclipse [redhat.com]
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2, Informative)
In response to your earlier point, your editor looks nice but I don't see using it versus using Eclipse are mutually exclusive. I switch between vim and Eclipse all of the time. Sometimes I want a light-weight editor and sometimes I want a heavyweight IDE with package organization and javadoc look up and code completion. As they say, YMMV.
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
What I wanted to say with my reply in the first place (I know it was a little evil.. sorry java), was that sometimes people forgot that there exists small alternatives (I know my editor doesn't have 0.1% of the features in eclipse).
Huge editors may confuse people which wants to learn programming. BTW: we have reached a point where vim also has grown huge. How do I define huge? If you cannot overview the ful
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
46k in a gzipped tar file? That's great.
I've been interested in Ruby for a couple of years but I haven't given it the time it needs. I look forward to reading through your source.
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
Thanks
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
I also unsuccessfully tried installing other jvm's.. iirc it was name devil-something.. or kaffe.. not sure. These were all unsuccessful, but furtunatly failed quickly.
jdk 1.3 took half an eternity, and occupied 3 gigabytes. I could have settle with a less optimized application, and I would still be happy.
it hasn't been a pleasure for me to deal with java freebsd.
Though I managed to install java, and run that application which I wanted to try out (FOP which crashed every second time
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2)
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
--
Simon Strandgaard
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:2)
Check out their Demo [helene.muze.nl] it worls on Mozilla 1.3+ and IE 5.5+
Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks (Score:1)
Can CDT import Makefiles? (Score:1)
Re:Can CDT import Makefiles? (Score:3, Informative)
It's been a while (Score:2)
Re:It's been a while (Score:2)
Why would you do this? You can define a method either in the header or the implementation file (although it's prudent to separate interface from implementation).
Re:It's been a while (Score:2)
MyClass.h:
void doSomething();
MyClass.cpp:
void MyClass::doSomething();
It would be nice if I had a 'Source'-right mouse menu that put the method I just defined in the header file into the implementation file.
Re:It's been a while (Score:3, Informative)
MFC Support for Refactoring? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know how this refactoring works? I presume that the environment needs to parse the source files in order to determine what to rename (as with Java). Does it use the GNU compiler for this? If so, can GNU handle MFC? Sounds a bit like worlds colliding to me...
Re:MFC Support for Refactoring? (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding your question, the answer for VC6/MFC6 would be definately no. The VC7.1 compiler is much better and is much more like the standard C++ that is supported in GCC 3.4. MFC71, unlike VC71, is backward compatible, but they must never-the-less have made some changes to it to make it work with the new compiler. I wonder if MFC71 is compatible with VC71's strict conformance mode?
I guess what I'm saying is that you might be able to refactor an MFC71 app with Eclipse, but probably not an MFC6 one.
Keep in mind that MFC is proprietary stuff. Even if you own a copy I'm not sure what the license says about modifying it (ie. to work with a different compiler).
Too bad there is so much MFC code around.
Re:MFC Support for Refactoring? (Score:2)
Anyway, I'll give it a try with CDT when I have a chance.
MacOS CDT Anytime Soon? (Score:2)
Anyone heard/know anything?