Do NOT use Dev-C++...

[helios]

...and do not recommend using it. It's old, outdated, and unmaintained.
Do you want to know how old it is?

http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/beginner/15105/

That's right. Its MinGW doesn't have std::getline().

[mcleano]

:S I use std::getline all the time...

I jump between VC++ and Dev

[Bazzy]

From Wikipedia:

The project is no longer noticeably active, with no news posted nor any updated versions released since February 22, 2005. However there is a development team that has taken the Dev-C++ IDE and added new features such as support for multiple compilers and a RAD designer for wxWidgets applications. This IDE can be found under the name wxDev-C++.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev-C%2B%2B#Development_status )

[chrisname]

Do you want to know how old it is?

very old

I've been trying to tell people this. It development was stopped in 2005!!!

Stable release 4.9.9.2 / 2005-2-22; 4 years ago

[outsid3r]

I know that Dev C++ sucks, sometimes it also crash too, i have lose some work because of that. A recommendation: Use a simple text editor, maybe with highlight only, then use makefiles to compile your code, plain, pure and simple. I use this method even in windows, the same in linux of course.

[Bazzy]

A recommendation: Use a simple text editor, maybe with highlight only, then use makefiles to compile your code, plain, pure and simple. I use this method even in windows, the same in linux of course.

I do not agree: use an IDE, it would make life easier. An IDE is more than a text editor with a 'compile' button

[chrisname]

I don't know; I agree with outsid3r. I have stopped using CodeBlocks recently (yesterday) in favour of gedit + terminal (for GCC/G++). I also use Vim for ASM as gedit has no syntax highlighting of ASM.

[mcleano]

Why stop using a more sophisticated piece of software that isn't hard to use, for something simpler like a text editor?

[helios]

What? Why would you need syntax highlighting for Assembly? It has like five different tokens.

[chrisname]

@mcleano,
i find it faster.

@helios,

It has like five different tokens.

264 keywords (movl, movq, movb, pushl, pushq, pushb, popl, popq, popb, mov, push, pop to name a few); about 30 registers (excluding 64-bit registers, of which there are a further 10 or more (rax, rbx, rcx, rdx, and then their 16- and 8-bit counterparts, e.g. eax -> ax -> ah, al)... Then theres directives (.data, .text); comments ('#' and '/**/' for GAS, ';' for NASM) and operators (well... more like symbols seeing as there's no +, - etc.); sections; variables and procedures (which are really just labels).

There are almost 20 different variations of JMP (jump)!

It has alot of tokens!

And I just spent almost more than half an hour making a .lang file for gedit (it's some kind of variation on an XML file which it uses for syntax highlighting) with all the opcodes and registers I could find; and I don't even know where to put it.

[Duthomhas]

A token is not the same as an opcode or register name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_analysis

[chrisname]

http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp181/Dannynono/Rage.jpg

I found an image->text converter but there was too many chars :(

[helios]

264 keywords

Which are very easy to read because they're always the first thing on each line (assuming the line is an instruction).

about 30 registers

Also easy to see. The only thing that can be passed as an operand to an instruction is a constant, a label (which is also a constant), a simple constant operation, or a register. Or are you saying it's hard to tell apart eax from is_prime?

Then theres directives

Also at the beginning of line.

comments

Those, I can accept.

operators

+ and - stick out like sore thumbs, in Assembly code. But I could accept parenthesis highlighting.

Here's how many tokens a bare bones register Assembly has: opcode, literal, register, and operand separator. There. The rest are just bureaucracy and convenience.
And some Assemblies have even less. A stack Assembly only needs opcode and constant.

EDIT: Also, what Duoas said.

[chrisname]

True the point of syntax highlighting is to make code easier to read; but does that have to be the only reason?
Syntax highlighting generally makes code clearer. As I never plan anything (I actually use comments to help me think about what I'm doing... so instead of grabbing a text file and writing "Do this, then that" I do it as comments, while I write) it makes life a little easier.