Dev C++ as of 2013 [closed]

Question 1

A great deal here depends on what you want.

I would characterize Dev-C++ as a mediocre IDE with really good packaging.

What I mean by good packaging is that Dev-C++ is quite easy to get installed and working. The package includes a recent copy of gcc, and (at least in my experience) getting it installed and working is quite simple and straightforward. Up until a few years ago, the easiest way to get gcc installed and actually working (especially under Windows) was almost certainly to install Dev-C++. Even if you only planned to use the compiler from the command line, it was worth installing the IDE just to get the compiler installed correctly without jumping through dozens of flaming hoops. Other packages have caught up in that respect though, so there are half a dozen (or so) that make it trivial to get gcc installed and working just fine (and many of them have more up-to-date compilers than Dev-C++ too).

What I mean by mediocre IDE is that the editor (especially) simply isn't very capable compared to most others. Consider a few points:

No support for regexes in searching/replacing
Built-in version control support is hard coded for CVS
Ability to set compiler options in the environment is very limited

To me, these limitations might have been acceptable, say, 20 years ago, especially when more capable editors were likely to cost more money. Today, these strike me as simply inexcusable omissions. Given the number of free alternatives that are obviously superior, I can't imagine using this on a regular basis.

I have a hard time figuring out a person or situation to which I'd consider Dev-C++ well suited. If you're programming on a regular basis, you deserve a more capable editor, and integration with the source code control you're using (which I certainly hope isn't CVS).

It's kind of a stretch, but I suppose it might work for a middle manager who wants to be able to glance through code and check that it compiles cleanly, but doesn't use it enough to bother learning any more than the most rudimentary use of an editor. Even there, however, failing to support modern version control systems is a severe limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plug-ins to support more modern version control, but if you have to spend much time on configuration, you lose the one real advantage of Dev-C++.

Bottom line: While it might not be the worst possible choice, I also can't imagine a situation in which Dev-C++ would be my first choice, or even among my top three choices.

Question 2

Archived answer: As of 2019, neither the original Dev-C++ project nor the Orwellian spin-off have put out a stable release in several years. The below is no longer true. In addition, Visual Studio has greatly improved and has a free offering.

Dev-C++ has picked up a lot of "bad press" over the years from people who think they know what they are talking about. But the truth is that these "new features" of "modern IDEs" are not required to write good programs.

In fact, I'd say that Visual Studio 2013 differs from Visual Studio 2008 only in the sense that it is massively bloated, looks horrific and only barely supports the language that it purports to allow you to write. The sole exception that I can see is the Intellisense which, again, is often at odds with the actual Visual Studio compiler due to large discrepancies in language support between the two.

Dev-C++, on the other hand, uses a recent MinGW by default (which is an excellent product) and lets you — gasp — write C++ code, that is then compiled and linked into an executable that you can send to all your friends. Since the software is still being actively developed, the staple accusation of those self-proclaimed experts that it is "out of date" is hardly defensible.