Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 23:49 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 400885
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-07-21
I don't think it's fair to say one is superior to the other; the projects have different goals and shouldn't be compared in this way. MinGW is primarily a port of GCC and related tools to Windows, and .NET support has no place here (as GCC doesn't support .NET either.) The Mono project provides open source .NET, and Mono runs on Windows.
MinGW only provides the ability to compile Windows API programs. Good programs should compile on any Win32 compiler that supports the same language (of course, this might exclude MS's own compiler in the case where MS's compiler is insufficient - for example, C99 support.)
GCC shouldn't be anything more than one of many compilers people can choose on Windows. If a program requires GCC to compile, perhaps the program is doing something nonstandard.
The decision shouldn't be difficult to make. Are you writing UNIX software? Are you writing Windows software? Are you writing software that only targets standard C/C++/some other library that supports both Windows and UNIX?