I am a C++ hobby enthusiast and I would like to start using Linux and G++. I have downloaded Ubuntu to a flash drive but I have not yet installed it. Is Ubuntu the right version of Linux for a beginner and how do I aquire a G++ IDE and compiler?

i think any distro with gcc installed will work. i would start by compiling hello-world on the command line. then look for an ide that you like to use (i think eclipse is popular).

i use gedit and gcc on fedora live-usb whenever i need to.

Hi there,

okay, but I recommend to take a few days' time before to get used to the system - to get it installed in the first place. Preferrably without deleting the existing Windows environment, so that the OP has something familiar to revert to when something gets difficult. Best way to do this is probably a dual-boot configuration.

As for the IDE ... my favorite is code::blocks.

[X] Doc CPU

Yes, it's a great distro for a beginner. Just use the existing package management system to view a variety of available tools.

1) How old is your Borland C++ ? Most questions I've seen about moving from Borland C++ to GCC get bogged down in details that are really about moving from an obsolete early version of C++ up to current and moving from a platform that freely mixes in Microsoft specific non portable constructs to a platform is mainly portable (and anything no portable is also non Microsoft).

2) The choice of distribution is not a major choice for your purpose. The major choice is IDE, which is a completely independent choice from distribution.

3) I like code::blocks anyway, but one possible major extra advantage of code::blocks is that you could make the jump in two steps: First Borlan to code::blocks and second Windows to Linux.
IIRC, it is pretty easy to download and install a Windows code::blocks package bundled with mingw (a Windows port of GCC) giving you everything you need to learn to use code::blocks in Windows.
Back when I last did it, it was somewhat harder to install code::blocks correctly in Linux, because it only pulls in what it needs for itself. It doesn't pull in other packages that you need to make code:blocks effective for you (that tends to be true of Linux IDEs in general). You need to know what to expect in order to know what other packages you should have installed in order to make the IDE effective.
I always believe in splitting learning into focused aspects when possible, rather than such things as using an OS you don't know yet for learning an IDE you don't know yet while learning a much newer C++ than you likely know.

2 members found this post helpful.

Hi there,

the latest version of Borland C++, which I, too, have still installed on my Windows PC, is version 5.01 from 1996.

That doesn't match my impression. Okay, Borland C++ is slightly behind the standard, and source code from the 90's needs some adaptions here and there to compile on a modern compiler. But that's peanuts. The real challenge is changing from a programming environment that is clearly intertwined with Windows to one that tries to be platform independent. All code that interacts with the GUI has to be rewritten.
Anyway, Borland C++ is still gold compared to Microsofts Visual C++ that even tampers with the programmer's source files when you least expect it to enforce the use of Microsoft's templates.

Thats for sure a significant point. But for me, the real advantage of code::blocks is the integration of totally different toolchains. I can compile projects for Linux, for Windows, for the legendary 6502 processor or for Atmel/AVR µCs just by selecting a different profile, and without ever leaving my Linux PC.

Yea, the code:blocks package is only the IDE, not the compiler/linker toolchains for a specific target system. While a GNU/Linux system should have all the necessary tools "on board" to develop native applications, toolchains for different targets, such as Windows or certain µCs, must be installed and configured separately.

[X] Doc CPU

1 members found this post helpful.

Trivial to install if you know what to ask for, but typically not "on board" (installed by default with the distribution). Most Linux users never need to even compile any C++ source code.

As best as I recall from long ago (not necessarily well) code::blocks on Linux needed some automake or related packages, that I never needed for ordinary C++ development and that code::blocks didn't call out as a dependency, so I found it hard to get from "it doesn't seem to work" to "just needed to install this extra package".

Hi there,

that may be true, but I haven't yet come across a distro that didn't have the toolchain around gcc preinstalled in its standard installation - though not necessarily g++.

Your memory is either not accurate or not up to date. Actually, code::blocks just needs the tools themselves (compiler, linker, etc) installed.

[X] Doc CPU