msvc or gcc?

clang

File: 1484699914718.jpg (993KB, 1182x1581px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 1182x1581px

>>59490687
GCC or LLVM

>>59490699
fpbp

>>59490687

As an outside perspective from someone with 0 programming knowledge who has had to compile several open source software because they were source only releases, I found that using GCC on Linux (with help from tutorials, admittedly) was a hell of a lot easier and mistake-free than MSVC.

Something about the way Visual Studio handles integrating dependencies made it a fucking nightmare for me. I'd have to go into several options pages and link very specific dlls to certain things. On Linux it was always just a quick run of commands in the terminal and all dependencies were there and it was compiling in no time.

>>59490687
GCC or clang.
GCC is a little better for C than Clang, while Clang is better for C++ than GCC.

>>59490699
Msvc produces faster binaries tho

>>59490859
This is still true from a programmers' insider perspective. MSVC is fucking horrible as soon as you want to do anything substantial. It is nice and polished as long as you only want to do the basics, but as soon as you need the flexibility of a non-toy project, it becomes a tool from the abyss.

Sadly there are a lot of programmers out there that have accepted "stop trying to do non-toy projects" as a development philosophy. I suppose MSVC suits them well.

>>59490687

obviously gcc, what the fuck OP?

>>59490699

clang is not fully mature yet and still produces larger binaries with less optimisations in many cases.