Eclipse Project Releases CDT 2.0

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."

Comments

Thank you IBM

[tomee]

Eclipse is perhaps one of the greates things to happen lately. But I think it's full potential has not nearly been realized yet. Since it supports everything via plugins, one could make html editors, office applications, or even stuff like photo editing software under eclipse which would then feature a unified and interoperable user interface. I really hope to see this kind of thing soon.

Re:Thank you IBM

[FedeTXF]

Well, I doubt many people will use eclipse for things other than programming and developement related activities.
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

[Samrobb]

The base conmponents are too much biased towards its prime target: be an IDE.

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 docs for Eclipse 3.0.

Re:Thank you IBM

[bXTr]

Since it supports everything via plugins, one could make html editors, office applications, or even stuff like photo editing software under eclipse which would then feature a unified and interoperable user interface. I really hope to see this kind of thing soon.

You already can. It's called Emacs. :)

Re:Thank you IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its full potential," idiot.

correct link

[standsolid]

to the eclipse project frontpage, and to the CDT Page itself.

check those urls!

Re:correct link

[Anonymous Coward]

what nonsense
aren't these the same as the ones in the original news item??

Re:correct link

[standsolid]

the original news link had this (they forgot the http://)

Eclipsenet

[BortQ]

I can see it happening now. Things keep getting added and added to Eclipe...

Eventually it becomes self-aware and launches the nukes.

Then it's all-out war: Man vs. Eclipse. (cue the music)

Re:Eclipsenet

[Michael Pigott]

IBM is already working on that: CodeRuler

Re:Eclipsenet

[javax]

yeah, just like it is now with Emacs...

Re:Eclipsenet

[BortQ]

Yeah, but the masses could never be convinced into giving up control to Emacs. Eclipse on the other hand is all graphical-like.

eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

I have written an editor that can do syntax coloring in only ~3000 lines of code.

I hate java!!

screenshots of my editor

judge yourself... does eclipse really sux?

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Eclipse is more than an editor and your screenshots look like a complete waste of time.

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

tell me how is eclipse more than an editor?

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

[JohnFluxx]

and eclipse being heavy and big is a problem because...?

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

my big problem is really java.. it took a whole day to compile on my 700MHz freebsd box. I had to fill in lots of personal info, in order to be able to download java. Thats when I really started to hate java.

Eclipse are just huge.. and lacks a good editor.

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[JohnFluxx]

not an attack, but what's with mixing up 'is' and 'are'?

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

[neoneye]

sorry for confusion 'is' and 'are'.. english is not my native language.

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

[tiptone]

this is certainly not all you'll need, but will provide a starting point.

GCJ Eclipse

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Java / FreeBSD, hang on a second. You're using version 1.3 of Sun's JDK since there isn't a 1.4 JDK for BSD available. There have been significant performance / memory use improvements in 1.4 and even more in 1.5. Your argument is the same as saying all Volkswagons cars are shit because I had an 1977 Volkswagon and it was a shit car. Things change and it's really sad that FreeBSD doesn't stay more current on the JDKs. Perhaps you should write the FreeBSD foundation and tell them to stay more on top of things.

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

correct.. it was 1.3.

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).

compiling for so long, makes people worry if something are wrong.

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[Gilk180]

That's what you get for running a dead os.

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Your editor is stupid, and so are you.

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

i have recently switched to linux.. I don't think the case is much different there.

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[fender_rules]

What JVM do you use? I'm using Linux GTK2 version of Eclipse for all my development tasks on mere P800/377RAM machine. GTK2 version is reasonably fast and looks very nice with other native GNOME applications, but it'll be quite unusuable with less than 256M RAM. And always use the latest (> 1.4.x) JVM, it makes much difference. If you really need a fast Eclipse, try Motif or Fox version instead. It's lot faster (and uglier) than GTK version.

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[SnapShot]

Linux Journal had an article talking about the RedHat team's efforts to natively compile Eclipse with gcj.

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

[neoneye]

Interesting article link.. im going on 3 week vacation to us, so only have brief time to answer now.

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 full source code, and have no clue where to modify it to suit fit own needs.

Agree, sometimes huge editors are needed.
Im just confused and believes small editors are overlooked.

(Thanks for taking a look at my project ;-)

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[SnapShot]

Speaking of small editors, I was pretty impressed that I could download the sourcecode for AEditor in seconds.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Eclipse is a tool. Like vi, many people will say that once they learn it, they are much better off. There is a learning curve, like vi, but once you are over it, you'll get a LOT more out of it than "syntax highlighting".

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[neoneye]

I hope won't disapoint you too much.

Thanks ;-)

--
Simon Strandgaard

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[gabebear]

Talking about cool little editors, I discovered Helene a little while ago, it's a editor with syntax highlighting and auto-indent written in Javascript! It's still a bit alpha and misses some features like being able to paste multiple lines, but it's still reallly impressive.

Check out their Demo it worls on Mozilla 1.3+ and IE 5.5+

Re:eclipse are huge - small editors rocks

[moeffju]

What you're missing is that Eclipse is not just an editor, but quite a lot more than that.

Can CDT import Makefiles?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be very cool if CDT could import and scan already written Makefiles. It would rock to be able to setup a kernel eclipse project have it scan the toplevel and subdirectory Makefiles and be able to look at structure definitions and jump to various parts of the kernel with Ctrl-click, like Ctrl-[ in ctags.

Re:Can CDT import Makefiles?

[Anonymous Coward]

This release of CDT can handle this. (In fact, I've done it. Multiple times :-) It's non-trivial, but not too horrendously difficult.

It's been a while

[KamuSan]

Since I programmed in C++ (guess 8+ years now) Anyone has any tips/links how to use CDT on Linux? Where do I get the header files and libraries? Any introduction on programming C++ on Linux? Is there no way to get a method you defined in the header-file into the .cpp? I expected that. One of the things Java is easier to use is that you don't have to copy stuff from the header file into the implementation file. I'd expect a tool to be able to do that for me.

Re:It's been a while

[E_elven]

>Is there no way to get a method you defined in the header-file into the .cpp?

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

[KamuSan]

Welllllll, like I said it's been a while, but I vaguely remember having to define a class method in the header file and then having to implement it in the implementation file. ;-)

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

[E_elven]

You don't have to do that (the define once rule). You can do either:

// my_class_1_h
class my_class
{
void do_nothing() { return void; }
};

// my_class_2_h
class my_class
{
void do_nothing();
};

// my_class_2_cpp
void my_class::do_nothing()
{
return void;
}

.

MFC Support for Refactoring?

[plasticmillion]

Well this doesn't seem to be the world's most active thread, but just in case someone is reading this: what interested me most about CDT is the refactoring support. This is sorely missing in Visual Studio.

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?

[Qwavel]

Yes, refactoring is sorely missing in Visual Studio and for C++ in general. I think I heard that Visual Slick Edit now supports some refactoring for C++ but it's kind of expensive, particularly if you want to use it on more than one platform.

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?

[plasticmillion]

I actually tried Visual Slick Edit for exactly this reason, but I wasn't particularly impressed. First of all, it doesn't let you import Visual Studio projects using the Eclipse plugin, which is a big problem for us since, as you have no doubt gathered, we are tainted Windows programmers. The standalone client isn't nearly as, umm, slick as Visual Studio or Eclipse, and in any case it couldn't parse MFC, although apparently they are working on this.

Anyway, I'll give it a try with CDT when I have a chance. I'm skeptical but we'll see.

I agree that MFC is a bit of a liability these days. I'd like to get away from it, but we need to settle on an alternative (and obviously the port of our 200,000+ lines will be no small undertaking).

Re:MFC Support for Refactoring?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this doesn't seem to be the world's most active thread, but just in case someone is reading this: what interested me most about CDT is the refactoring support. This is sorely missing in Visual Studio.

FYI, Visual Studio 2005 (currently in beta) supports refactoring.

Re:MFC Support for Refactoring?

[Anonymous Coward]

rename refactoring is all that is currently supported ... it uses the search index to declarations, definitions and references of different constructs, and massages the code to perform the rename.

MacOS CDT Anytime Soon?

[gabebear]

Is anyone working on getting CDT working on OSX? I really like Eclipse's Editor, XCode's editor is missing block-indent.

Anyone heard/know anything?