Borland C++ oomplier
-
I've read some posts talking about Borland C++ Compiler. I never used it, I always worked with MSVC++, but I wonder what you guys think about the Borland compiler. Have you had the chance to work with both of them ? What are the pros and cons of the two ? Why did you choose one rather than the other ? Jerome
-
I've read some posts talking about Borland C++ Compiler. I never used it, I always worked with MSVC++, but I wonder what you guys think about the Borland compiler. Have you had the chance to work with both of them ? What are the pros and cons of the two ? Why did you choose one rather than the other ? Jerome
I used the Borland C++ for five years in DOS. It was far superior to Microsoft's earlier efforts. It had a decent IDE and help and had the wonderful Turbo Vision GUI Framework. I switched to Microsoft Visual C++ when I changed jobs and became a Windows programmer. Visual C++ 1.5 didn't have the best IDE but MFC was a lot better than Borland's OWL framework. I had had a play with Delphi and C++ Builder but found them a lot harder to use the Visual C++. The RAD enviroment got in my way more than it helped (I have the same problem with VB). MFC is the main reason that I'm a Microsoft user now rather than a Borland one. Michael :-)
-
I used the Borland C++ for five years in DOS. It was far superior to Microsoft's earlier efforts. It had a decent IDE and help and had the wonderful Turbo Vision GUI Framework. I switched to Microsoft Visual C++ when I changed jobs and became a Windows programmer. Visual C++ 1.5 didn't have the best IDE but MFC was a lot better than Borland's OWL framework. I had had a play with Delphi and C++ Builder but found them a lot harder to use the Visual C++. The RAD enviroment got in my way more than it helped (I have the same problem with VB). MFC is the main reason that I'm a Microsoft user now rather than a Borland one. Michael :-)
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC is the main reason that I'm a Microsoft user now rather than a Borland one. But, as far as I know, you can use the MFC with Borland ? Is it true ? Jerome
-
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC is the main reason that I'm a Microsoft user now rather than a Borland one. But, as far as I know, you can use the MFC with Borland ? Is it true ? Jerome
I believe you can nowadays, in the first versions you couldn't and in the later versions you had to go through a pain in the ass compiler setup. Then of course it didn't support Class Wizard. I haven't looked at Borland products for a long while, after spending about £2000 on various packages and never really using them I stuck to what I enjoyed best - Visual C++. Borland have even stopped sending me upgrade offers which was how they got me to keep spending money on their products with promises of easy development of advanced applications with cool GUI's. Michael :-)
-
I used the Borland C++ for five years in DOS. It was far superior to Microsoft's earlier efforts. It had a decent IDE and help and had the wonderful Turbo Vision GUI Framework. I switched to Microsoft Visual C++ when I changed jobs and became a Windows programmer. Visual C++ 1.5 didn't have the best IDE but MFC was a lot better than Borland's OWL framework. I had had a play with Delphi and C++ Builder but found them a lot harder to use the Visual C++. The RAD enviroment got in my way more than it helped (I have the same problem with VB). MFC is the main reason that I'm a Microsoft user now rather than a Borland one. Michael :-)
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC was a lot better than Borland's OWL framework. Looking at my Bio, I think I'll have to take exception to that! ;) OWL 1.0 stunk. One of the craziest differences between it and MFC was that MFC used message map macros to hook-up member functions to Windows messages, while in OWL 1.0 you had to make all messiage-response functions virtual, and you set their index in the vtable to be the int number of the windows message! Granted, that was bizarre, but OWL 2.0 was wonderful. I still go back and look at my old OWL code just to play around with it. The type of difference I remember: when you created a TPen in OWL, it actually created the underlying PEN object, while with MFC you had to create the CPen object, and then call it's Create() method. Encapsulation my butt ;) The biggest problem with OWL was that it simply couldn't be updated as fast as the Windows GUI landscape was changing. MFC always beat it out the door with objects encapsulating new UI elements. Now don't get me wrong, I love everything VC (except for .ncb files), but I have fond memories of my OWL coding days... -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: MFC was a lot better than Borland's OWL framework. Looking at my Bio, I think I'll have to take exception to that! ;) OWL 1.0 stunk. One of the craziest differences between it and MFC was that MFC used message map macros to hook-up member functions to Windows messages, while in OWL 1.0 you had to make all messiage-response functions virtual, and you set their index in the vtable to be the int number of the windows message! Granted, that was bizarre, but OWL 2.0 was wonderful. I still go back and look at my old OWL code just to play around with it. The type of difference I remember: when you created a TPen in OWL, it actually created the underlying PEN object, while with MFC you had to create the CPen object, and then call it's Create() method. Encapsulation my butt ;) The biggest problem with OWL was that it simply couldn't be updated as fast as the Windows GUI landscape was changing. MFC always beat it out the door with objects encapsulating new UI elements. Now don't get me wrong, I love everything VC (except for .ncb files), but I have fond memories of my OWL coding days... -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
Russell Morris wrote: The type of difference I remember: when you created a TPen in OWL, it actually created the underlying PEN object, while with MFC you had to create the CPen object, and then call it's Create() method. Encapsulation my butt MFC's CPen supports that kind of encapsulation too.
CPen pen(PS_SOLID, 3, RGB(255, 0, 0));
// Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
I've read some posts talking about Borland C++ Compiler. I never used it, I always worked with MSVC++, but I wonder what you guys think about the Borland compiler. Have you had the chance to work with both of them ? What are the pros and cons of the two ? Why did you choose one rather than the other ? Jerome
Borland used to rock. For a time, they had the PC compiler market in the palm of their hands, and they let MS walk away with it. The only reason I moved to MSVC was because of MFC - when I started playing with C++ in the mid-90's we had to decide on OWL or MFC, and MFC was obviously gonna win the framework race, hence the switch. However, I still have projects that were developed using Borland C (we are talking about some very old code here!) so I stil use it now and again (v5.5). The compiler is fast and robust, but the IDE looks horribly dated nowadays and crashes too often. One thing it does do well is 16 bit code (yes, I still occasionally need to build for Win16 ... unbelievable) so I have no choice but to have it installed. When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) and then Borland came up with Turbo C for Windows which blew me away. At the time, it was the only real choice for Windows development - it had a reliably Windows IDE and the OWL framework was taking shape. I never imagined having to use MS compilers again (MS compilers didn't have a great reputation). Then they brought out v5.0 and started to lose it - it had better OWL and would compile MFC, but the IDE was buggy and unreliable. Sometime soon after, MS updated MFC (thus ensuring Borland users couldn't have the latest features) and bought out MSDEV. The battle was lost. Sigh... I also spent a little time looking at Delphi, and then C++ Builder - great ideas, but it meant Borland had its fingers in too many pies - if they'd stuck to C++ instead getting involved with Pascal then they may have stood a chance. I think they overstretched themselves (trying to compete with VB by putting out a Pascal product was, with hindsight, not the best of moves) and they lost some good people to MS. In another universe, Borland reigns supreme as THE choice of development environment for Windows apps! Just my 2p. Now I am moving away from MFC in favout of WTL and I am not interested in anything with .NET after its name, so if Borland comes out with a new Windows compiler/IDE then I'll take a look! However, they are now concentrating on the Linux market, which will make them lots of money right?
-
Borland used to rock. For a time, they had the PC compiler market in the palm of their hands, and they let MS walk away with it. The only reason I moved to MSVC was because of MFC - when I started playing with C++ in the mid-90's we had to decide on OWL or MFC, and MFC was obviously gonna win the framework race, hence the switch. However, I still have projects that were developed using Borland C (we are talking about some very old code here!) so I stil use it now and again (v5.5). The compiler is fast and robust, but the IDE looks horribly dated nowadays and crashes too often. One thing it does do well is 16 bit code (yes, I still occasionally need to build for Win16 ... unbelievable) so I have no choice but to have it installed. When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) and then Borland came up with Turbo C for Windows which blew me away. At the time, it was the only real choice for Windows development - it had a reliably Windows IDE and the OWL framework was taking shape. I never imagined having to use MS compilers again (MS compilers didn't have a great reputation). Then they brought out v5.0 and started to lose it - it had better OWL and would compile MFC, but the IDE was buggy and unreliable. Sometime soon after, MS updated MFC (thus ensuring Borland users couldn't have the latest features) and bought out MSDEV. The battle was lost. Sigh... I also spent a little time looking at Delphi, and then C++ Builder - great ideas, but it meant Borland had its fingers in too many pies - if they'd stuck to C++ instead getting involved with Pascal then they may have stood a chance. I think they overstretched themselves (trying to compete with VB by putting out a Pascal product was, with hindsight, not the best of moves) and they lost some good people to MS. In another universe, Borland reigns supreme as THE choice of development environment for Windows apps! Just my 2p. Now I am moving away from MFC in favout of WTL and I am not interested in anything with .NET after its name, so if Borland comes out with a new Windows compiler/IDE then I'll take a look! However, they are now concentrating on the Linux market, which will make them lots of money right?
Thanks for your answer ! As I said, I only worked with MS. My company is going to develop a new user interface for it's machines. My boss will have to decide wether we develop it under MS or Borland. The interface will have to be developped quickly and will have to be highly customizable to adapt to each customer's habits. To my boss, Borland seems more adapted for this kind of app. Would you agree ? Jerome
-
Borland used to rock. For a time, they had the PC compiler market in the palm of their hands, and they let MS walk away with it. The only reason I moved to MSVC was because of MFC - when I started playing with C++ in the mid-90's we had to decide on OWL or MFC, and MFC was obviously gonna win the framework race, hence the switch. However, I still have projects that were developed using Borland C (we are talking about some very old code here!) so I stil use it now and again (v5.5). The compiler is fast and robust, but the IDE looks horribly dated nowadays and crashes too often. One thing it does do well is 16 bit code (yes, I still occasionally need to build for Win16 ... unbelievable) so I have no choice but to have it installed. When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) and then Borland came up with Turbo C for Windows which blew me away. At the time, it was the only real choice for Windows development - it had a reliably Windows IDE and the OWL framework was taking shape. I never imagined having to use MS compilers again (MS compilers didn't have a great reputation). Then they brought out v5.0 and started to lose it - it had better OWL and would compile MFC, but the IDE was buggy and unreliable. Sometime soon after, MS updated MFC (thus ensuring Borland users couldn't have the latest features) and bought out MSDEV. The battle was lost. Sigh... I also spent a little time looking at Delphi, and then C++ Builder - great ideas, but it meant Borland had its fingers in too many pies - if they'd stuck to C++ instead getting involved with Pascal then they may have stood a chance. I think they overstretched themselves (trying to compete with VB by putting out a Pascal product was, with hindsight, not the best of moves) and they lost some good people to MS. In another universe, Borland reigns supreme as THE choice of development environment for Windows apps! Just my 2p. Now I am moving away from MFC in favout of WTL and I am not interested in anything with .NET after its name, so if Borland comes out with a new Windows compiler/IDE then I'll take a look! However, they are now concentrating on the Linux market, which will make them lots of money right?
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) Hey! I also started Windows programming with QuickC!! I remember when Windows 3.1 came out (I was 11) I kept using QuickC with the 3.0 headers for a while, before I convinced my dad to get Visual C++ 1.0 Standard for me. Cheers, -- LuisR -------- Luis Alonso Ramos Chihuahua, Mexico www.luisalonsoramos.com
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) Hey! I also started Windows programming with QuickC!! I remember when Windows 3.1 came out (I was 11) I kept using QuickC with the 3.0 headers for a while, before I convinced my dad to get Visual C++ 1.0 Standard for me. Cheers, -- LuisR -------- Luis Alonso Ramos Chihuahua, Mexico www.luisalonsoramos.com
-
Ahhh...let's not go there...in '91 I was in Desert Storm at that time, and I was 24. DOH! Brigg Thorp Software Engineer Timex Corporation
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: When I started doing Windows development in 1992, I was using MS Quick C for Windows (remember that? I still have the floppy setup disks) Hey! I also started Windows programming with QuickC!! I remember when Windows 3.1 came out (I was 11) I kept using QuickC with the 3.0 headers for a while, before I convinced my dad to get Visual C++ 1.0 Standard for me. Cheers, -- LuisR -------- Luis Alonso Ramos Chihuahua, Mexico www.luisalonsoramos.com
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote: I convinced my dad to get Visual C++ 1.0 Standard for me. Your dad is pretty cool. :) Jon Sagara What about :bob:?
-
Man am I feelin older by the second! I was 20 also :(( :(( :(( Paul Lyons Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
Thanks for your answer ! As I said, I only worked with MS. My company is going to develop a new user interface for it's machines. My boss will have to decide wether we develop it under MS or Borland. The interface will have to be developped quickly and will have to be highly customizable to adapt to each customer's habits. To my boss, Borland seems more adapted for this kind of app. Would you agree ? Jerome
I worked with Borland C++ builder: Pro: seems like easier to develop UI Cons: If you have problem try debugging c calls -> pascals. Bugs everywhere in CaptiveX code. Takes years to have bug fixed. Libs generated with MVSC can not be linked with Borland, and back. I just can not take function from this site and paste it into C++B. BC++ studio(?) is very poor development environment when comparing to DevStudio. On my project we ported all code from back to MSDEV. ActiveX bugs were last ..... Brian
-
Thanks for your answer ! As I said, I only worked with MS. My company is going to develop a new user interface for it's machines. My boss will have to decide wether we develop it under MS or Borland. The interface will have to be developped quickly and will have to be highly customizable to adapt to each customer's habits. To my boss, Borland seems more adapted for this kind of app. Would you agree ? Jerome
for pure gui's, Borland Builder is SO easy to use, especially compared to MFC (like I hate all these cute CButton classes, ColoredBUtton classes, resizeable dialog classes that I am using from Code Project - actually I love them and am deeply grateful to the guys for providing them, but all that stuff is trivial in Borland. What value is it to my business that it takes a day to make a button colored? Why not use an easier tool? I don't care that it goes through VCL, as long as it works. But I've never convinced a client to use Borland instead of MFC, and I've not used it much for database work, and will defer to the opinions of the other user who'd had tons of trouble with Active X, database connectivity, and debugging in general. I had stuck with the pure-vcl stuff, and it was always so easy to do threads, display AVI's , do sound, do controls (that work intuitively without grief). Maybe your boss would find VB more appealing - for quick gui development, VB is great. Borland is $50 for the student edition - would be worth the try.:rolleyes: