I decided to leave my windows install behind and am now running Debian as my default OS. I have always coded in Windows and specifically with Visual Studio. I am currently trying to get used to compiling my code under linux.
Although I still have a lot of documentation to read, and don't expect you guys to make it too easy for me, it'd still be nice to get some pointers on where to start. I have some specific questions, but feel free to suggest/recommend anything else regarding the subject.
What are recommended guides on creating a make file, how do I compile from this makefile (do I call g++ myself, do I use 'make'?)
Looking at other linux software, they almost always seem to have a 'configure' file. What exactly does it do? Does it only check if the required libraries are installed or does it more than just checking requirements?
How do I link libraries, and how does this relate to my makefile or g++ parameters? In windows I would compile the library, include some header files, tell my linker what additional lib file to link, and copy a dll file. How exactly does this process work in linux?
Recommendations for code editors? I am currently using nano and I've heard of vim and emacs, but don't know what the benefits of them are over eachother. Are there any others, and why would I consider them over any of the previous three? Note: I am not looking for an IDE.
Any help, links to guides & documentation (preferably those that are aimed at beginners) are very much appreciated!
What are recommended guides on creating a make file, how do I compile from this makefile (do I call g++ myself, do I use 'make'?)
You build from the makefile by invoking "make". And inside your makefile, you compile and link using g++ and ld.
Looking at other linux software, they almost always seem to have a 'configure' file. What exactly does it do? Does it only check if the required libraries are installed or does it more than just checking requirements?
It's a script usually used to set up various things based on the environment being used for building. Sometimes it's just a basic shell script, other times it invokes tools like Autoconf to discover what is available when building. The "configure" script is usually also a place for the user to specify various optional things to be built or excluded, like support for experimental features.
How do I link libraries, and how does this relate to my makefile or g++ parameters? In windows I would compile the library, include some header files, tell my linker what additional lib file to link, and copy a dll file. How exactly does this process work in linux?
ld is the GNU linker. You can invoke it separately (which is what most makefiles will end up doing), or you can have g++ delegate to it. The options you pass to g++ and ld determine where to look for included headers, libraries to link, and how to output the result.
Recommendations for code editors? I am currently using nano and I've heard of vim and emacs, but don't know what the benefits of them are over eachother. Are there any others, and why would I consider them over any of the previous three? Note: I am not looking for an IDE.
Vim and Emacs are very flexible editors that support a whole bunch of different usages. Use whatever feels best to you, though I'd suggest you might want a few minimal things like syntax highlighting.
Just a note to go with MandyK's answers.
Creating make files by hand is usually a very unportable way of building across linux distro's/unix variants. There are many build systems for auto generating make files, building without make files. GNU Autotools, Cmake, Scons, jam, etc.
Also to go more in depth about configure.
Checks available compilers, libraries, system architecture.
Makes sure your system matches the appropriate compatible package list.
Lets you specify command line arguments to specialize your build, install path, option packages etc.
Configure then generates an appropriate Makefile specific to your system.
What are recommended guides on
creating a make file, how do I compile
from this makefile (do I call g++
myself, do I use 'make'?)
I learned how to write makefiles by reading the GNU Make manual.
Looking at other linux software, they
almost always seem to have a
'configure' file. What exactly does it
do? Does it only check if the required
libraries are installed or does it
more than just checking requirements?
The configure file is usually associated with autotools. As the name of the script suggests, it allows you to configure the software. From the perspective of the developer this mostly means setting macros, which determine variables, which libraries are available, and such. It also tests for the availability of libraries. In the end the script generates a GNU Makefile, which you can then use to actually build and install the software.
The GNU build system is only one of many. I don't particularly like the GNU build system as it tends to be slower than others, and generates an ugly Makefile. Some of the more popular ones are CMake, Jam (Boost Jam might be of interest for C++) and waf. Some build systems simply generate Makefiles, while others provide a completely new build system. For simple projects writing a Makefile by hand would be easy, but "dependency checking" (for libraries, etc) would also have to be done manually.
Edit: Brian Gianforcaro also pointed this out.
Your question is a bit too general, but here is what I would recomment:
Editor: vim and emacs are popular. What matters the most, as with most tools, is to master one. I like using vim because vi (its descendant) is available everywhere, but that may not be very relevant, specially if you stay on Linux. Any programming editor is fine.
configure: unless you do big projects, don't bother with it. It is a nightmare to use and debug. It only makes sense if you intend to distribute your project - in that case, read the autobook: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/. As other said, there are alternatives (cmake, scons, etc...). I am quite familiar with both scons and autotools, but I still use make for small (couple of files) projects.
Concerning shared library: it is almost as windows, except that you link against the shared library directly - there is no .lib vs .dll distinction in Linux. For example. for one library foo with a function foo:
int foo(void)
{
return 1;
}
You would build it as follows:
gcc -fPIC -c foo.c -o foo.o
gcc -shared foo.o -o libfoo.so
A main (of course in real life you put the API in a header file):
int foo(void);
int main(void)
{
foo();
return 0;
}
And then, you link it as:
gcc -c main.c -o main.o
gcc main.o -o main -L. -lfoo
The -L. is here to say that you want the linker to look in the current directory (contrary to windows, this is never done by default in Linux), the -lfoo says to link against the library foo.
So to get you started I will first point you to this guide for makefiles, it also covers some linking stuff too.
It's just a little something my university Computer Science prof gave us I found it to be very clear and concise, very helpful.
And as for an IDE, I use eclipse usually because it handles the makefile as well. Not to mention compile and standard output are right at your fingertips in the program.
It was mainly intended for Java developing, but there is a C/C++ plugin too!
Recommendations for code editors? I am
currently using nano and I've heard of
vim and emacs, but don't know what the
benefits of them are over eachother.
Are there any others, and why would I
consider them over any of the previous
three? Note: I am not looking for an
IDE.
Vi and Emacs are the two quintessential Unix editors; if you are set on using a text editor rather than an IDE, one of them or their derivatives (vim, xemacs, etc) is the way to go. Both support syntax highlighting and all sorts of features, either by default or via extensions. The best part about these editors is the extensibility they offer; emacs via a variety of lisp, and vim via its own scripting language.
I personally use Emacs, so I can't say much about Vim, but you should be able to find lots of information about both online. Emacs has several good tutorials and references, including this one.
EDIT [Dec 2014]: There seems to be a trend of cross-platform and highly extendable editors recently. This could be a good choice if you'd like something less than an IDE, but more graphical than vi/emacs and native-feeling across multiple platforms. I recommend looking at Sublime or Atom; both of these work across Windows/Linux/Mac and have great communities of plugins and themes.
I recommend the book The Art of Unix Programming by ESR. It covers choice of editor, programming language, etc. It also gives a good sense for the mindset behind programming on Unix or Linux.
For editors, you probably want either Vim or Emacs. They are both different and which one is better is more about personal taste than anything else. I use Vim. It is great for quickly moving around the code and making changes. I didn't like Emacs as much but many people do. Emacs is extremely extensible and can be used for everything from a news reader to an ide. Try both and see what you like.
Recommendations for code editors? I am currently using nano and I've heard of vim and emacs, but don't know what the benefits of them are over eachother. Are there any others, and why would I consider them over any of the previous three? Note: I am not looking for an IDE.
If you're using Linux with a window manager (KDE, Gnome, etc.) you could also consider using the standard text editor for your window manager. The main benefit it would have over vim/emacs/nano is that it would seem more familiar to one coming from a Windows environment - an editor written to run on the window manager has a menu bar, file open/save dialogs, undo/redo, and plenty of other neat features that console editors probably can't match. (Though emacs and vim are pretty sophisticated these days, so who knows ;-P)
On KDE (which is what I use) I can recommend KWrite, which is a well-featured but fairly basic text editor with syntax highlighting; or Kate, which is a fancier text editor with some extra features: session management, a builtin terminal panel, automatic invocation of make, and several plugins including a C/C++ symbol viewer. I usually use Kate for my C++ work when I don't want to bother with setting up a full IDE project. (FYI the IDE for KDE is KDevelop)
the space between invoking g++ directly and using an autotools build chain is pretty narrow. Get good at autotools, which is really the closest thing to a 'project' available in the Linux/Open Source world.
For someone coming from Visual Studio, all this commandline stuff might seem arcane and messy.
Before you turn into a bash shell/vim/emacs junkie, try a few GUI based tools first so you have some transition time...
QT 4.5 with its QT Creator mini-IDE. This is the best framework, lightyears ahead of the competition.
Eclipse (C++) - From my experience with this on Windows, I find it's astounding ( This is probably the best Java application ever written )
KDevelop
Anjuta
If you use Delphi, Lazarus/FreePascal is a good alternative.
I'm sure the longhairs will scoff and claim that vim or emacs gives them the best and fastest development environment, but different strokes for different folks. Someone accustomed to an IDE will take some time to switch or may not wish to switch at all.
For all their editing prowess, creating GUI apps is certainly not a job for 80x25 tools.
It takes years to become an expert with the command line side of things, its more of a transformation of worldview than anything else.
As a side note amongst the proper answers here.. In case you wanna hit the ground running as a Windows guy, I'd suggest the fresh new Qt SDK. It will feel like home :-)
I advise using SCons in place of Make, it does the same job but it's easier to use and handle out of the box how to make dynamic libraries, dependencies, etc. Here it is a real life example for a simple prog
env = Environment()
env.Append(CCFLAGS='-Wall')
env.Append(CPPPATH = ['./include/'])
env.MergeFlags('-ljpeg')
env.ParseConfig("sdl-config --cflags --libs")
env.ParseConfig("curl-config --cflags --libs")
env.ParseConfig("pkg-config cairo --cflags --libs")
env.Program('rovio-pilot', Glob('./src/*.cpp'))
As a text editor, I'm happy with JEdit for coding, but it's a matter of taste.
Related
I'm a C++ beginner and I'm starting to develop my first cross-platform C++ project. I need to use platform-specific calls (Win32 and POSIX) so I need to compile frequently both in Windows and Linux.
Whit single-platform projects I'm using, until now, KDevelop in Linux and Visual Studio 2012 in Windows.
How can I use two different IDEs in two different Operating Systems with the same project?
Should I use a single, cross-platform, IDE?
Should I learn CMake (or similar) and configure it to work with both IDEs?
Could/Should I host my code in the web and sync automatically with offline projects?
Alternatives?
Thanks in advance to everyone.
EDIT:
Just for clarification, the project will be a simple server for a scholastic protocol. There will be a client asking for upload/retrieve some files to/from the server.
With scholastic I mean that, for example, I have to use pthreads/win32 threads instead of an higher level C++ threads library.
Maybe - really depends on what you feel most comfortable with. As the project is non-graphical, all the IDE gives you is editing of files and compilation. So you can build the project on one machine with the IDE there, and then move the sources to another machine for compiling there.
I personally would just have two makefiles, one for Linux and one for Widnows. Makes life fairly simple [you could have a "outer" makefile that picks the right one based on some clever method].
Yes, you should find a version control system that works for both Windows and Linux (git, mercurial, subversion, bazaar and several others). That way, not only do you have a central repository [you can use either of your machines as "server" for any of these], but it also allows you to keep track of your changes. Definitely worthwile doing!
There are hundreds of different alternatives. But the simpler you keep it, and the less complicated your tools are, the more time you get to spend on actually programming your project, rather than, for example, figure out why CMake isn't building the way you want it to.
Also, make sure that you separate out all your system-specific code to one file per architecture. That way, it's easy to port to another architecture later, and it makes MOST of your code compile on both systems.
Typically, it's easy to adjust the IDE-specific project/build files to added/moved/deleted source files. Therefore, using a cross-platform IDE isn't that important.
You can do that, I think that CMake can also create project files for some IDEs that can then be used to build the project.
Ahem, if you want to host it online or not is your choice. What you should definitely do is to use some kind of version control. A bug-tracking system is also helpful. If you want to open-source the code anyway, using one of the existing hosting facilities is a clear yes.
Not really.
One comment though: You will have much more trouble making the C++ code portable. Building on top of a toolkit like Qt is a tremendous help. If you want to stay closer to standard C++, at least consider using Boost for stuff like threads, smart pointers, filesystem access. Good luck!
My recent experience suggest to take a look at Qt. The IDE (QtCreator) it's very good, and available on all major platforms.
I've used for a fairly simple project, that uses fairly complex components, like OpenCV and ZBar. I develop on Linux, copy the source to Windows, and recompile.
I had some trouble to setup OpenCV on both platforms, so I can't say it's super easy, but it's working. Since you already know KDevelop, you should already know Qt.
I also put much value in recent trend that see Qt5 as the platform for Ubuntu on smartphones. I really hope to see this developing.
HTH
How can I use two different IDEs in two different Operating Systems with the same project?
Should I use a single, cross-platform, IDE?
No. I think this is a case of asking the wrong question. To make a cross-platform project, what matters is your build scripts and the system-neutral nature of your code. Sometimes it might help to have project files for your preferred IDE, but maintaining multiple project files for multiple IDEs will only make things more difficult and complex for you. Instead, you should focus on finding a build system that minimizes the amount of time you spend on project maintenance.
For that, CMake and PreMake seem to be two of the best tools to make that happen.
There are dozens of alternatives (like SCons, Cook, kbuild, Jam and Boost Jam, and many others), but since CMake and PreMake both generate project files and build scripts, they might be the best solutions.
Your mileage will vary.
Could/Should I host my code in the web and sync automatically with offline projects?
You should have robust source control that works everywhere you do. Git and Mercurial seem to work best if you use some kind of "cloud" hosting like Github or BitBucket, but they by no means require it. Depending on your work environment and team size, you may prefer Subversion or PerForce or something else, but that's up to you and your team.
it will help, you will quite likely need to debug on many platforms... Qt Creator, Netbeans and Eclipse come to mind.
Yes. cmake, or qmake for Qt maybe
Not technical question. Just use version control! github and gitorious are easy choices for open source project though.
Qt is a no-brainer choice for cross-platform C++ GUI app, and also decent choice for network app with no GUI.
What are the differences between Autotools, Cmake and Scons?
In truth, Autotools' only real 'saving grace' is that it is what all the GNU projects are largely using.
Issues with Autotools:
Truly ARCANE m4 macro syntax combined with verbose, twisted shell scripting for tests for "compatibility", etc.
If you're not paying attention, you will mess up cross-compilation ability (It
should clearly be noted that Nokia came up with Scratchbox/Scratchbox2 to side-step highly broken Autotools build setups for Maemo/Meego.) If you, for any reason, have fixed, static paths in your tests, you're going to break cross-compile support because it won't honor your sysroot specification and it'll pull stuff from out of your host system. If you break cross-compile support, it renders your code unusable for things like
OpenEmbedded and makes it "fun" for distributions trying to build their releases on a cross-compiler instead of on target.
Does a HUGE amount of testing for problems with ancient, broken compilers that NOBODY currently uses with pretty much anything production in this day and age. Unless you're building something like glibc, libstdc++, or GCC on a truly ancient version of Solaris, AIX, or the like, the tests are a waste of time and are a source for many, many potential breakages of things like mentioned above.
It is pretty much a painful experience to get an Autotools setup to build usable code for a Windows system. (While I've little use for Windows, it is a serious concern if you're developing purportedly cross-platform code.)
When it breaks, you're going to spend HOURS chasing your tail trying to sort out the things that whomever wrote the scripting got wrong to sort out your build (In fact, this is what I'm trying to do (or, rather, rip out Autotools completely- I doubt there's enough time in the rest of this month to sort the mess out...) for work right now as I'm typing this. Apache Thrift has one of those BROKEN build systems that won't cross-compile.)
The "normal" users are actually NOT going to just do "./configure; make"- for many things, they're going to be pulling a package provided by someone, like out of a PPA, or their distribution vendor. "Normal" users aren't devs and aren't grabbing tarballs in many cases. That's snobbery on everyone's part for presuming that is going to be the case there. The typical users for tarballs are devs doing things, so they're going to get slammed with the brokenness if it's there.
It works...most of the time...is all you can say about Autotools. It's a system that solves several problems that only really concerns the GNU project...for their base, core toolchain code. (Edit (05/24/2014): It should be noted that this type of concern is a potentially BAD thing to be worrying about- Heartbleed partially stemmed from this thinking and with correct, modern systems, you really don't have any business dealing with much of what Autotools corrects for. GNU probably needs to do a cruft removal of the codebase, in light of what happened with Heartbleed) You can use it to do your project and it might work nicely for a smallish project that you don't expect to work anywhere except Linux or where the GNU toolchain is clearly working correctly on. The statement that it "integrates nicely with Linux" is quite the bold statement and quite incorrect. It integrates with the GNU toolsuite reasonably well and solves problems that IT has with it's goals.
This is not to say that there's no problems with the other options discussed in the thread here.
SCons is more of a replacement for Make/GMake/etc. and looks pretty nice, all things considered However...
It is still really more of a POSIX only tool. You could probably more easily get MinGW to build Windows stuff with this than with Autotools, but it's still really more geared to doing POSIX stuff and you'd need to install Python and SCons to use it.
It has issues doing cross-compilation unless you're using something like Scratchbox2.
Admittedly slower and less stable than CMake from their own comparison. They come up with half-hearted (the POSIX side needs make/gmake to build...) negatives for CMake compared to SCons. (As an aside, if you're needing THAT much extensibility over other solutions, you should be asking yourself whether your project's too complicated...)
The examples given for CMake in this thread are a bit bogus.
However...
You will need to learn a new language.
There's counter-intuitive things if you're used to Make, SCons, or Autotools.
You'll need to install CMake on the system you're building for.
You'll need a solid C++ compiler if you don't have pre-built binaries for it.
In truth, your goals should dictate what you choose here.
Do you need to deal with a LOT of broken toolchains to produce a valid working binary? If yes, you may want to consider Autotools, being aware of the drawbacks I mentioned above. CMake can cope with a lot of this, but it worries less with it than Autotools does. SCons can be extended to worry about it, but it's not an out-of-box answer there.
Do you have a need to worry about Windows targets? If so, Autotools should be quite literally out of the running. If so, SCons may/may not be a good choice. If so, CMake's a solid choice.
Do you have a need to worry about cross-compilation (Universal apps/libraries, things like Google Protobufs, Apache Thrift, etc. SHOULD care about this...)? If so, Autotools might work for you so long as you don't need to worry about Windows, but you're going to spend lots of time maintaining your configuration system as things change on you. SCons is almost a no-go right at the moment unless you're using Scratchbox2- it really doesn't have a handle on cross-compilation and you're going to need to use that extensibility and maintain it much in the same manner as you will with Automake. If so, you may want to consider CMake since it supports cross-compilation without as many of the worries about leaking out of the sandbox and will work with/without something like Scratchbox2 and integrates nicely with things like OpenEmbedded.
There is a reason many, many projects are ditching qmake, Autotools, etc. and moving over to CMake. So far, I can cleanly expect a CMake based project to either drop into a cross-compile situation or onto a VisualStudio setup or only need a small amount of clean up because the project didn't account for Windows-only or OSX-only parts to the codebase. I can't really expect that out of an SCons based project- and I fully expect 1/3rd or more Autotools projects to have gotten SOMETHING wrong that precludes it building right on any context except the host building one or a Scratchbox2 one.
An important distinction must be made between who uses the tools. Cmake is a tool that must be used by the user when building the software. The autotools are used to generate a distribution tarball that can be used to build the software using only the standard tools available on any SuS compliant system. In other words, if you are installing software from a tarball that was built using the autotools, you are not using the autotools. On the other hand, if you are installing software that uses Cmake, then you are using Cmake and must have it installed to build the software.
The great majority of users do not need to have the autotools installed on their box. Historically, much confusion has been caused because many developers distribute malformed tarballs that force the user to run autoconf to regenerate the configure script, and this is a packaging error. More confusion has been caused by the fact that most major linux distributions install multiple versions of the autotools, when they should not be installing any of them by default. Even more confusion is caused by developers attempting to use a version control system (eg cvs, git, svn) to distribute their software rather than building tarballs.
It's not about GNU coding standards.
The current benefits of autotools — specifically when used with automake — is that they integrate very well with building Linux distribution.
With cmake for example, it's always "was it -DCMAKE_CFLAGS or -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS that I need?" No, it's neither, it's "-DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE". Or -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_DEBUG. It's confusing - in autoconf, it's just ./configure CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb3" and you have it.
In integration with build infrastructures, scons has the problem that you cannot use make %{?_smp_mflags}, _smp_mflags in this case being an RPM macro that roughly expands to (admin may set it) system power. People put things like -jNCPUS here through their environment. With scons that's not working, so the packages using scons may only get serialed built in distros.
What is important to know about the Autotools is that they are not a general build system - they implement the GNU coding standards and nothing else. If you want to make a package that follows all the GNU standards, then Autotools are an excellent tool for the job. If you don't, then you should use Scons or CMake. (For example, see this question.) This common misunderstanding is where most of the frustration with Autotools comes from.
While from a developers point of view, cmake is currently the most easy to use, from a user perspective autotools have one big advantage
autotools generate a single file configure script and all files to generate it are shipped with the distribution. it is easy to understand and fix with help of grep/sed/awk/vi. Compare this to Cmake where a lot of files are found in /usr/share/cmak*/Modules, which can't be fixed by the user unless he has admin access.
So, if something does not quite work, it can usually easily be "fixed" by using Standard Unix tools (grep/sed/awk/vi etc.) in a sledgehammer way without having to understand the buildsystem.
Have you ever digged through your cmake build directory to find out what is wrong? Compared to the simple shellscript which can be read from top to bottom, following the generated Cmake files to find out what is going on is quite difficult. ALso, with CMake, adapting the FindFoo.cmake files requires not only knowledge of the CMake language, but also might require superuser privileges.
We have a not very complicated but big (i.e. lots of files) Visual Studio C++ Win32 Console written in C++0x standard in VS2010.
It does not use any non standard code or anything (Hopefully!).
I now wanna port it to Linux.
Which way is the quickest way to do it?
autoconf?
old-fashioned make file?
any other solution?
I would use regular make but keep it simple with default rules as much as possible. Add in dependencies as you go along.
EDIT: As in interim step, build it with mingw so that you can avoid the whole API porting issue until you have a working build in your new build mechanism.
If your console app calls win32 API functions then you have a choice between modifying all the source where it is used or writing a module that implements those functions.
In prior porting efforts of this type I tried it both ways and the latter was easier. I ended up writing only about 18 to 20 shim functions.
It was successful enough that I ended up writing an OS abstraction layer that was used on many projects that simply let me compile on Windows native, cygwin, Linux, VxWorks, etc. with trivial changes to one or two files.
(p.s. Any interest in an open source version of a C++ based OS abstraction layer? I was thinking of releasing an unencumbered version of it to the world if there's sufficient interest. It's mostly useful where BOOST is too heavy -- i.e. embedded projects.)
Most probably you don't need autoconf (and I suggest you don't touch it, unless you love pain), because you are not trying to be portable to a dozen of Unix flavours.
Roll your Makefiles manually. It shouldn't be too difficult if you have a set of shared rules and have minimal Makefiles that just specify source files and compile options.
Use GCC 4.5 as it supports more C++0x features.
You can export a make file from Visual Studio.
Update: Actually you can't anymore, unless you have VC6 lying around
STAY AWAY FROM AUTO* and configure. These are horrible IMHO.
If you can somehow get a VS 8 or 9 vcproj/sln, you can use this. I have not used it, so I can't give any advice.
If you're up to manual conversion, I would suggest something like CMake, as it's pretty easy to get ready fast enough, even for large projects.
If the project has a simple layout, you could have success using Qt 4's qmake like this:
qmake -project
It will output a qmake .pro file, which can be converted into a makefile on many platforms (using qmake). This should work okay, but not perfectly. Alternatively, you can install the Qt plugin for VS, and let it generate the pro file from an existing VS project. It will make your build system depend on Qt4's qmake, which is probably not what you want.
There are of course other things like cmake, but they will all require manual intervention.
The fastest way to do it?
g++ *.cpp -o myapp
Seriously, depending on your needs, even generating a makefile might be overkill. If you're just interested in a quick and dirty "let's see if we can get a working program on Linux", just throw your code files at g++ and see what happens.
We have a handful of developers working on a non-commercial (read: just for fun)
cross-platform C++ project. We've already identified all the cross-platform libraries we'll need. However, some of our developers prefer to use Microsoft Visual C++ 2008, others prefer to code in Emacs on GNU/Linux. We're wondering if it is possible for all of us to work more or less simultaneously out of both environments, from the same code repository. Ultimately we want the project to compile cleanly on both platforms from the start.
Any of our developers are happily willing to switch over to the other environment if this is not possible. We all use both Linux and Windows on a regular basis and enjoy both, so this isn't a question of trying to educate one set devs about the virtues of the other platform. This is about each of us being able to develop in the environment we enjoy most yet still collaborate on a fun project.
Any suggestions or experiences to share?
Use CMake to manage your build files.
This will let you setup a single repository, with one set of text files in it. Each dev can then run the appropriate cmake scripts to build the correct build environment for their system (Visual Studio 2008/2005/GNU C++ build scripts/etc).
There are many advantages here:
Each dev can use their own build environment
Dependencies can be handled very cleanly, including platform specific deps.
Builds can be out of source, which helps prevent accidentally committing inappropriate files
Easy migration to new dev. environments (ie: when VS 2010 is released, some devs can migrate there just by rebuilding their build folder)
I've done it and seen it done without too many problems.
You'll want to try an isolate the code that is different for the different platforms. Also, you'll want to think about your directory structure. Something like
project/src <- .cc and .h files
project/src/linux|win <- code that is specific to one platform or the other
project/linux <- make files and other project related stuff
project/win <- .sln and .csproj files
Basically you just want to be really clear what is specific to each system and what is common.
Also, unit tests are going to be really important since there may be minor difference and you want to make it easy for the windows guys to run some tests to make sure the linux code works as expected and the other way around.
as mentioned in previous posts, Qt is a very easy method to do real simultaneous multi-platform development - independent of your IDE and with many different compilers (even for Symbian, ARM, Windows CE/Mobile...).
In my last and current company I work in mixed Linux- and Windows-developer teams, who work together using Subversion and Qt (which has a very easy and powerful build-system "QMake", which hides all the different platform/compiler specific build environments - you just have to write one build file for all platforms - so easy!).
And: Qt contains nearly everything you need:
simple string handling, with easy translation support and easy string conversion (utf8, utf16, asci...)
simple classes for file i/o, images, networking etc.
comfortable gui classes
graphical designer for the gui layout/design
graphical translation tool to create dynamic translations for your apps (you can run one binary with different selectable languages - even cyrillic, asian fonts...)
integrated testing framework (unit tests)
So Qt is a full featured and very reliable environment - I use it for 10 years.
And: Qt integrates seamlessly into IDEs like VC++, Eclipse or provides its own IDE "QtCreator".
see: http://www.trolltech.com + http://doc.trolltech.com
Best Regards,
Chris
I had such experience working in Acronis. We had the same codebase used to build binaries (fully packaged installers, actually) targetting Win32/64, Linux, and OS X (and a bunch of other more exotic platforms, such as EFI), with everyone working in their IDE of choice. The trick here is to avoid compiler- and IDE-specific solutions, and make your project fully buildable from clean cross-platform make files. Note that you can perfectly well use any make system together with VC++, so it isn't a problem (we used Watcom make for historical reasons, but I wouldn't recommend it).
One other trick you can do is add a make script that automatically produces project files from the input lists in your makefiles, for all IDEs you use (e.g. VS and Eclipse CDT). That way, every developer generates that stuff for himself, and then opens those projects in IDE to edit/build/debug, but the source repository only has makefiles in it.
Ensuring that code is compilable for everyone can be a problem, mostly because VC++ is generally more lax in applying the rules than g++ (for example, it will let you bind an rvalue to a non-const reference, albeit with a warning). If you compile with treat warnings as errors, and highest warning levels (with perhaps a few hand-picked warnings disabled), you will mostly avoid this. Having contiguous rolling build set up is another way to catch those early. One other approach we've used in Acronis is to have the Windows build environment have Cygwin-based cross-compilation tools in it, so any Windows dev could do a build targeting Linux (with the same g++ version and all) from his box, and see if that fails, to verify that his changes will compile in g++.
I personally use cmake/mingw32/Qt4 for all my C++ needs.
QtCreator is a crossplatform IDE which is somewhat optimized for qt4 programming.
We're working on a cross-platform project as well. We're using Emacs to code, SCons to build and Visual Studio 2008 to debug. It's my 1st time using Emacs + SCons and I must say that It's very very nifty once you figure out how does the SConstruct and SConscripts work.
I'm late to this question, and there are a lot of good answers here, but I haven't seen anyone enumerate all the issues I've run into (most of my work in C++ is and has been cross-platform), so:
Cross-platform compilation. Everyone has covered this quite well. CMake, and SCons are useful among others.
Platform differences. These aren't actually limited to Linux v Windows. Different versions of Windows have plenty of subtle issues. If you ever want to jump from Linux to OS X you'll find the same. So do processor architecture differences: 32 v 64 bit doesn't usually matter - until it does and things break on you very badly. This is something C++ programmers face more than in most other languages, whose implementations are working hard to hide this sort of thing from programmers.
Test everything. Alan mentions unit tests but let me emphasize them. The real problem with cross-platform programming is not code that won't compile: it's code that compiles just fine and does the wrong thing in subtle cases. Unit tests matter here much more than they do when you are working on a single platform.
Use portable libraries whenever possible. Getting this right is full of subtle gotchas. It's better to take advantage of someone else's work than to roll your own. Qt is useful here, as are NSPR and APR (the latter two are C, but wrappers exist if you don't want to mess with them directly.) These are the libraries that explicitly target platform abstraction as a goal, but most other libraries you use should be checked for this. Be reasonably wary of cool libraries that don't have a track record of portability. I'm not saying don't use them: just test first. Doing this right saves you enormous effort on testing.
Pavel mentions continual integration. This may not matter if there are only a handful of you. But I've found that the number of platforms you get when you consider all of the OS, OS variant, and processor differences means that without some form of continuous build-test cycle you will always be missing some edge case. If your project gets bigger than a handful of people consider doing this.
Version control. The most obvious issue is handling newlines and filename case-sensitivity but there are others. Most of the well-known open source VCSes do this right by now, but it's notable that it usually takes them several years to find all their bugs related to portability. As an example Mercurial, which has had portability as one of its selling points, has a series of fixes spanning three or four releases dealing with Windows filenames in uncommon situations. Make sure you can check out what the others check in early on.
Scripts. Use Perl/Python/Ruby (or something like them) for your scripting. Trying to keep Linux shell and Windows batch scripts in sync is painfully tedious.
Despite all of the above: overall cross-platform is quite doable, and there's no real reason to avoid it. My experience is that the problems tend to crop up sporadically, but when they do they take more than there fair share of time. If you've been programming a while though you won't find that unusual.
The issue is not really editing the C++ source files, but the build process itself. VS doesn't use the same Makefile architecture as Linux development typically does. A radical suggestion, but both groups could actually use the same C++ IDE and build process - see Code::Blocks for more info.
This is possible (I do that to earn my daily money :-) ).
But you have to keep in mind the differences in the OS supplied libraries which could be very annoying.
Two good options to get around that are BOOST and QT.
Both supply you with platform independent functions of useful stuff that isn't handled by the C lib and the STL.
I've done this in two ways:
Each platform has its own build system. Whenever someone changes something (adding a source file), they either adapt the other platform too, or they mail a notification and someone more familiar with the other platform adapts it accordingly.
Use CMake.
I can't say I really liked CMake, but a cross-platform tool certainly has its advantages.
Generally, using different compilers to compile your code from the very first few lines is always a good idea, as it helps improving code quality.
Another vote for cmake.
One thing to watch out for, filenames are cased but not case sensitive on Windows. They are case sensitive on most unix filesystems.
This is generally a problem with #include
eg. given a file FooBar.h
#include "foobar.h" // works on Windows, fails on Linux.
I do agree with everyone here that has suggested cmake for cross platform development in C++. It is an excellent tool.
Another thing I would suggest is to use eclipse CDT as development environment. It works in any place where you can run Java an gcc and that unifies your development environment.
I think that was Alan Jackson who gave emphasis to the unit test. For doing so yo would need some cross platform unit test libraries. I read this post time ago regarding C++ unit test frameworks. It is a bit outdated but thoughtful. The one missing that also works in both platforms is googletest.
Finally if you want to run those test automatically in both platforms cmake has another tool called ctest that is very good for doing so.
Check out premake... It is pretty similar to CMake but written using lua.
I have used this on a number of development projects and find it easy to learn and integrate into existing company and project structures.
Give it a try!
http://industriousone.com/premake
I'am aware there has been a generic question about a "best IDE in C++" but I would like to stress I'm a new to C++ and programming in general. This means I have the needs of a student:
relatively easy and unbloated working environment
things just work, focus on the code
color coding to show the different language features (comments, etc)
not too unfriendly (not a simple editor, something to handle projects from start to finish)
cross-platform so not to be bound with specific system practices
I think the above are relatively reasonable demands for an educational IDE, perhaps excluding the last as such universal tool might not exist. Any ideas?
It depends on which world are you coming from to learn C++.
Do you have previous Java experience? - Use Eclipse CDT.
Have used .NET previously? - Go with Visual Studio C++ Express Edition (and then throw it away if you really need multiplatform IDE, not just code).
Are you an Unix guy? Use just a syntax-highlighting editor + Makefile. When you want to learn basics of the C++, the project should not be complicated and it is well invested time to learn how the C++ compiler is called with preprocessor options, etc.
Code::Blocks is free and really easy to install and use. I always recommend it to my students.
I've heard good things about Code::Blocks. Might be a bit complex, but you can close any unneeded panes, and it's cross-platform.
I would recommend Komodo Edit.
It functions as a great text editor that I've used on Ubuntu, Windows(XP/7) and OSX. It's big brother is a full blown IDE but KE still allows for projects and some great extensions. It's also free and open source. I found it easy to get started quickly with it and as your skills grow, it has the ability to keep up.
Edit to add a link to ActiveState's community site for Komodo Extensions. If you decide to try out KE, I'd suggest the RemoteDrive Tree (ssh,ftp,scp remote editing) and Source Tree as a start.
If you are using both windows and linux (as your comment indicates), I'd recommend Qt Creator. Qt is cross platform so your apps will work on linux, windows, and mac. Qt has excellent documentation, too, so it's very newbie friendly. Signals and Slots take a bit of getting used to, but IMO it's worth it.
Until the last point I would have said Microsoft Visual C++ Express Edition, which is free and fits your first 4 criteria. Cross platform you'd be looking at something like emacs or vim, neither of which are particularly friendly. On Windows I actually use Notepad++ for small C++ programs as it has good syntax highlighting and a (limited) intellisense.
I'd recommend Eclipse CDT as it does good code completion and it builds code on the fly, so you can see your errors immediately which is very good for a language studying.
Assuming Linux/Unix like system ...
I've found out that it's much easier and beneficial to go the other way round. Try using 'simple' editor like vim and for C++ just Makefiles to compile using gcc and linker.
I've started using that at uni and 5> years and couple of companies later it's still the easiest and most flexible option because you have quick access to all settings in one simple file.
Even when you switch to IDE later on you will know what to look for if things don't work because you will know the basics for example what are the steps to go from source file to object file and link to binary executable, how to handle libraries and so on. These things change between IDE's and are often complicated to trace and modify.
You can start with simple makefile and keep improving it over years. It's easy to copy it to your project directory and update file names - for C++ the compilation process will be fairly standard between projects.
I highly encourage you to consider this option. I've learned a lot doing it that way and you have a backup plan when you IDE just wouldn't work.
I keep one generic Makefile that compiles main.cpp into executable. To compile something quickly I just copy it into directory and make.
My current workflow is to open all files in project directory (flat file system) with vim (vim *.cpp *.hpp), edit, compile with :mak (or :mak -C .. debug) from within vim to invoke the Makefile stored in relevant directory, after compiling it'll jump to first warning/error, use :cn to go over errors, fix what's needed, open errors in separate window with :cope (close with :clo or unload file with :bd, jump between split windows with ctrl-w ctrl-w or ctrl-ww - hold ctrl and press w twice) ...
Vim has syntax highlighting millions of other features, I'm using tags (or ctags) to navigate code from within vim and so on.
Personally, it's my opinion that all C++ IDEs suck. When I write C or C++, I tend to use some sort of powerful programmer's text editor along with command line compilation. If I'm just messing around and have a couple source files, I'll just invoke gcc -g -o myprog *.c on the command line myself. If I have a more involved project, I'll just write a simple makefile. You could also look into gmakemake if you don't want to bother learning makefile syntax just to compile your programs.
On the Mac side, I have always been a fan of both BBEdit and TextMate, but much more so of the latter, especially given its lesser price tag and more modern feel. Both have project organization features.
On Windows, I'd stick with either e (which is basically a port of TextMate to Windows) or Notepad++. The downside of Notepad++ is that it doesn't have any project organization features, whereas e does. You could also look at SciTE, but like Notepad++, it has no project org features.
As for Linux, I'm personally unsure. I'd stick with other people's answers covering that platform for recommendations there.