|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
| Which IDE is best suited for Allegro? |
|
AmnesiA
Member #15,195
June 2013
 |
I have used Allegro 5 before, I actually completed a game with it and then my interest died off. I'm looking to get back into it but I'm on a new HDD now and that means a blank canvas. I used C::B last time but it was a super messy installation. Which IDE is best in your opinion for less mess and also access to the latest features in allegro? [The reason my interest died is because I broke my allegro installation trying to get the video player feature installed, it was a disaster]. MSVC? C::B? Bloodshed? ======================= |
|
Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
 |
Can't help you with what IDE to use, but I'll give an alternative perspective. Personally, I don't use an IDE. Generally I use Sublime Text and an MSYS shell, with Premake5 to generate the Makefile (this is on Windows). It's pretty productive for me. Premake5 makes it really easy to generate cross platform build files. No need to fumble through pages of menus and dialogs, either--you just edit a small Lua script (in itself it doesn't even feel like a script, unless you make use of advanced features). --- |
|
raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010
|
I find Code::Blocks to be extremely easy to use with Allegro. There's not even a need for a messy install, just install MinGW manually and you can install a nightly C::B build by extracting 3 compressed files into the same folder. Can't get much tidier than that. An IDE isn't a complete necessity, but I find it is extremely helpful when it comes time to do step through the source code with the debugger. |
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
I like QtCreator a lot. IMHO it's much cleaner than Code::Blocks, which I've used before. Its "understanding" of C++ is quite good, there are many convenient features (try pressing CTRL+K or F2). It's optimized for Qt, so the drawback is that you have to use CMake for non-Qt-projects (QtCreator can parse CMakeLists.txt files / source trees). This can also be an advantage, though, because you can easily compile your project on any platform without any changes if you do it right. |
|
pkrcel
Member #14,001
February 2012
|
I should second Poly's suggestion, qtCreator is quite good nowadays. I've been a codeblocks user for a long time but I got stuffed with its unsatisfying CodeCompletition plugin (which is mostly why I need an IDE, I am lazy!) which couldn't parse & expand Macros. Both have the same underlying debugger (gdb) but I feel C::B debugger plugin does a better job of displaying STL structures. Drawback of QtCreator is indeed the need to use either qmake or CMake, but you can still use another build system defaulting to makefiles; not worth it thou cause I think CMake does a good job in itself (even thou it's not the best tool out there most probably). It is unlikely that Google shares your distaste for capitalism. - Derezo |
|
m c
Member #5,337
December 2004
 |
On linux, kate (with terminal plugin) Put a fgets() at the top of main() if you have to. You can setup up a make-based project but don't bother, its not really worth it because using visual studio as a text editor with built in debugger is 99% the productivity that you need. Also, I need to be able to have infinite vertical panels, and I won't pay money for ultra edit or sublime. crimson editor is a bit old and didnt open with drag n drop because of uac. (\ /) |
|
|
