CPP Builder or MSVC?
Steve Gordon
Ive been away from Windows programming for a couple years and now have to
come back and Dust off the Builder C++ again for a project that Im back on.
I used Delphi, and now C++ Builder 1.0 for Scientific Instrumentation and
visualization Software. Ive receltly seen the new Inprise Website and
Adversising and am sad to see that any and all improvements to this product
are Buissness-Database-Internet related.
I DONT care about:
a) Databases
b) Corporate
c) Enterprise
d) Buisness
e) Web based anything
f) Internet
I DO care about
a) Improved compile/link speed
b) Improved product stability
c) Direct-Sound, Direct-Draw, Direct 3D functionability
d) Much improved debugging
e) Low level features (Inline ASM, CPU and Mixed level debugging)
f) Better help files
g) Real RTTI (Builder 1.0's typeid() Just returns the declared variable
type (duh) )
h) Improved form loading/drawing time.
Is it worth it for me to Upgrade to C++ Builder 2,3 or even 4?
Maybe its finally time to switch back to MSVC, at least MSVC advertizes as a
general purpose application development package, not some hyper-souped up
Yuppy/Buisness/Internet tool. From reading the advertizements, I wouldnt
even know that BuilderC++ was a C++ Package if "C++" wasnt included in the
name!
Sorry if a little rant, Thanks for your reply,
Steve
William Leventhal
Power++
from Sybase.
Bill Leventhal
Circle Gear
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Power++ is faster than Delphi? (It isn't.)
--
Chris (TeamB)
Harold Howe (TeamB)
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote in message
<364332D0...@uzdavinis.com>...
>*ANY* C++ compiler is slower than Delphi. Are you implying that
>Power++ is faster than Delphi? (It isn't.)
>
considered
>> Power++
>> from Sybase.
>>Excuse me, but I have found that a ford escort is slower
>>than a porsche.
>Yes, Ford escorts are much slower than Porsches.
>Have you considered the Geo Metro?
<G>
Harold
Chris Hill
is not there, integrating the enterprise is not going to happen.
Since most of the public statements from Inprise relate to the
enterprise, the few statements about not forgetting the little people
don't really carry much weight. The strongest statement Inprise is
willing to make to that audience is with the products themselves. To
this point, I think they are doing a good job. However, I am always
on the watch for signals that this is changing.
The market in general is too focused on corporate agendas, and MS
isn't any better. Most companies are moving in that direction. One
can only hope that technically strong products survive under a
business friendly skin.
I am but one user. I care about the features a product has and the
quality of implementation, not corporate politics. R&D is expensive
(time and money), but it has long term benefits.
C++ Builder in particular needs features to fight the perception that
it is _only_ a RAD (I'm not particularly fond of this label) tool.
The compiler has been improved, but the IDE reinforces the idea that
BCB is the C++ version of Delphi. The shared VCL is good, even though
it can't use some C++ features because it is Object pascal based. But
the build environment for non-VCL code is still weak. A few strange
lines end up in source files. There are unusual constraints on the
source file structure of BCB projects. The Console Wizard, the new
project manager, and the ability to build OWL and MFC code are steps
is the right direction but fall short of making BCB look like a
"general purpose" C++ IDE. A well controlled build process (and
project manager) is the most immediate need in this area. If VCL code
isn't in a project, all traces of VCL concepts should disappear.
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:50:58 -0500, "Steve Gordon" <sgo...@mich.com>
wrote:
>I DONT care about:
>
>a) Databases
>b) Corporate
>c) Enterprise
>d) Buisness
>e) Web based anything
>f) Internet
>
>I DO care about
>
>a) Improved compile/link speed
>b) Improved product stability
>c) Direct-Sound, Direct-Draw, Direct 3D functionability
>d) Much improved debugging
>e) Low level features (Inline ASM, CPU and Mixed level debugging)
>f) Better help files
>g) Real RTTI (Builder 1.0's typeid() Just returns the declared variable
>type (duh) )
>h) Improved form loading/drawing time.
Chris Hill
hil...@cs.purdue.edu
Tzvetan Mikov
MSVC over CBuilder. It generates more efficient code, it has a better
debugger, it has the latest support for Direct3D, etc., it has excellent
help files, if you ask me it even compiles faster than CBuilder. Go for
MSVC. CBuilder will definitely give you a hard time if you try to develop
the kind of application you describe. (This might change in future versions,
however Inprise does not preanounce products, so I would not rely on that)
Tzvetan
Steve Gordon wrote in message <71v221$ir...@forums.borland.com>...
>Hi,
>
>Ive been away from Windows programming for a couple years and now have to
>come back and Dust off the Builder C++ again for a project that Im back on.
>
>I used Delphi, and now C++ Builder 1.0 for Scientific Instrumentation and
>visualization Software. Ive receltly seen the new Inprise Website and
>Adversising and am sad to see that any and all improvements to this product
>are Buissness-Database-Internet related.
>
>I DONT care about:
>
>a) Databases
>b) Corporate
>c) Enterprise
>d) Buisness
>e) Web based anything
>f) Internet
>
>I DO care about
>
>a) Improved compile/link speed
>b) Improved product stability
>c) Direct-Sound, Direct-Draw, Direct 3D functionability
>d) Much improved debugging
>e) Low level features (Inline ASM, CPU and Mixed level debugging)
>f) Better help files
>g) Real RTTI (Builder 1.0's typeid() Just returns the declared variable
>type (duh) )
>h) Improved form loading/drawing time.
>
Kenneth R. de Camargo Jr.
Steve Gordon wrote:
> Is it worth it for me to Upgrade to C++ Builder 2,3 or even 4?
>
Steve,
I'm using BCB primarily for writing apps for research purposes, although
there's a lot of database stuff into it. Others have been using it for a
wide assortment of apps. You'd better try checking on your own. Inprise
has a 90 day money back guarantee, AFAIK, might be worth checking.
It just strikes me as an odd thing someone declining a preference for MS
over Inprise due to "excessive hype" from the second.
Maybe things look different on this side of the Equator. Eh, Mike,
waddya say? :)
Ken
Rob Allen
functionality in it at all. I also use BC5 and MSVC5 on a daily basis.
I find BCB faster for the compile/link/debug cycle than BC5 was and have
learnt to live with disadvantages of no Resource Workshop or decent
Project Manager.
One of the biggest attractions of BCB is that it is a lot closer to the
C++ standard than MSVC (except maybe in template stuff). The scoping
rules with regards to for loops are lousy. Also MSVC has a brain dead
pre-compiled system that makes life difficult for cross-compiler work.
It doesn't accept a #ifdef before the pre-compiled header #include.
In article <71v221$ir...@forums.borland.com>, Steve Gordon
<sgo...@mich.com> writes
>I DO care about
>
>a) Improved compile/link speed
Seems faster to me.
>b) Improved product stability
I've found BCB3 the most stable compiler on my system. It is particular
about video drivers though.
>c) Direct-Sound, Direct-Draw, Direct 3D functionability
I've no idea about this one.
>d) Much improved debugging
BCB3's debugger is far superior to BCB1's. It is a debatable point on
whether VC5's is better.
>e) Low level features (Inline ASM, CPU and Mixed level debugging)
BSB3 Pro and above include TASM. The debugger has a CPU view window.
>f) Better help files
I prefer BCB3's help file system to MSVC's. This is a personal
preference as I find the HTML stuff much slower on my system.
>g) Real RTTI (Builder 1.0's typeid() Just returns the declared variable
>type (duh) )
I always use dynamic_cast<>() when I need RTTI and I know BCB3 supports
this.
>h) Improved form loading/drawing time.
No idea - not a factor in an OWL app :)
>
>Is it worth it for me to Upgrade to C++ Builder 2,3 or even 4?
Yes! You get a great C++ compiler, TASM, improved debugger and the
fastest GUI building system available. Also the project manager is a
vast improvement on BCB1's (though not up to BC5's).
Rob...
--
How difficult can it be?
William Leventhal
was wondering if anyone had any experiance with it. Thanks for the information.
Bill Leventhal
Circle Gear
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
> *ANY* C++ compiler is slower than Delphi. Are you implying that
> Power++ is faster than Delphi? (It isn't.)
>
> William Leventhal wrote:
> >
> > BCB3 compile and link time is much slower than Delphi. Have you considered
> > Power++
> > from Sybase.
> >
> > Bill Leventhal
> > Circle Gear
> >
> > Steve Gordon wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Ive been away from Windows programming for a couple years and now have to
> > > come back and Dust off the Builder C++ again for a project that Im back on.
> > >
> > > I used Delphi, and now C++ Builder 1.0 for Scientific Instrumentation and
> > > visualization Software. Ive receltly seen the new Inprise Website and
> > > Adversising and am sad to see that any and all improvements to this product
> > > are Buissness-Database-Internet related.
> > >
> > > I DONT care about:
> > >
> > > a) Databases
> > > b) Corporate
> > > c) Enterprise
> > > d) Buisness
> > > e) Web based anything
> > > f) Internet
> > >
> > > I DO care about
> > >
> > > a) Improved compile/link speed
> > > b) Improved product stability
> > > c) Direct-Sound, Direct-Draw, Direct 3D functionability
> > > d) Much improved debugging
> > > e) Low level features (Inline ASM, CPU and Mixed level debugging)
> > > f) Better help files
> > > g) Real RTTI (Builder 1.0's typeid() Just returns the declared variable
> > > type (duh) )
> > > h) Improved form loading/drawing time.
> > >
> > > Is it worth it for me to Upgrade to C++ Builder 2,3 or even 4?
> > >
> > > Maybe its finally time to switch back to MSVC, at least MSVC advertizes as a
> > > general purpose application development package, not some hyper-souped up
> > > Yuppy/Buisness/Internet tool. From reading the advertizements, I wouldnt
> > > even know that BuilderC++ was a C++ Package if "C++" wasnt included in the
> > > name!
> > >
> > > Sorry if a little rant, Thanks for your reply,
> > >
> > > Steve
>
> --
> Chris (TeamB)
Sigbjoern Revheim
> I can say that the things that you DO care about are the real advantages of
> MSVC over CBuilder. It generates more efficient code, it has a better
> debugger, it has the latest support for Direct3D, etc., it has excellent
> help files, if you ask me it even compiles faster than CBuilder.
I have used VC++ 5, and I must say that it was a nightmare to use. Changing one
line of code and it took 10 minutes to compile. In C++Builder it takes 30
seconds. And the code MSVC puts into your code makes it very unreadable. I must
agree that the help files are good, but the helpviewer is so bad that you don't
use the helpsystem.
Tzvetan Mikov
Sigbjoern Revheim wrote in message <36486A9A...@nsd.uib.no.nospam>...
>I have used VC++ 5, and I must say that it was a nightmare to use. Changing
one
>line of code and it took 10 minutes to compile. In C++Builder it takes 30
>seconds. And the code MSVC puts into your code makes it very unreadable. I
must
>agree that the help files are good, but the helpviewer is so bad that you
don't
>use the helpsystem.
>
I am surpised to hear this. Do you use precompiled headers, incremental
compilation and linking? On my system VC compiles blindingly fast (sometimes
faster than CBuilder). It processes several files at once and then
generates code for all of them. In VC 6 you can even change a line of code
while debugging and you can continue debugging.
As for the help system, I agree. The help viewer of VC5 is just ridiculous.
It is driving me nuts. It is so slow. However the new help that comes with
VC6 is much faster and is completely acceptable (on my somewhat old
system -Pentium Pro 200)
Tzvetan
T
>I have used VC++ 5, and I must say that it was a nightmare to use. Changing
one
>line of code and it took 10 minutes to compile. In C++Builder it takes 30
>seconds.
Then your application has a bad design (too much dependencies!). In VC you
can also use incremental linking that drastically reduces build times.
>And the code MSVC puts into your code makes it very unreadable.
The code that VC puts in the code is absolutely necessary because that is
what is needed. BCB3 has a different approach to develop programs, you
shouldn't consider them to be the same from the point of How to develop an
application.
>I must agree that the help files are good, but the helpviewer is so bad
that you don't use the helpsystem.
The help file system is much better than BCB3 files, because all available
information are included from the beginning and must not installed later by
hand via OpenHelp (<- poor documentation).
Sigbjoern Revheim
> Sigbjoern Revheim wrote in message <36486A9A...@nsd.uib.no.nospam>...
> >I have used VC++ 5, and I must say that it was a nightmare to use. Changing
> one
> >line of code and it took 10 minutes to compile. In C++Builder it takes 30
> >seconds. And the code MSVC puts into your code makes it very unreadable. I
> must
> >agree that the help files are good, but the helpviewer is so bad that you
> don't
> >use the helpsystem.
> >
>
> I am surpised to hear this. Do you use precompiled headers, incremental
> compilation and linking?
Of cource. But it seems that VC performes very badly on configurations with a
small amount of memory. (I only used 32Mb)
Stanislav Angelov
>Of cource. But it seems that VC performes very badly on configurations with
a
>small amount of memory. (I only used 32Mb)
>
Well, one year ago I had to plug 32MB more RAM just to switch from MSVC 4.2
to CBuilder 1. Now I am using both MSVC 6.0 and CBuilder 3. IMHO, MSVC eats
less resources than BCB.
Stanislav
Cydexia
obvious. memory for compilation and storage for temp files ? VC compile takes
annoyingly long on anything less than 64MB of ram and lots and lots of HD space,
but neither are big issues anymore.
DW
Cydexia
machine, but VC6 isnt anything like that.
DW
Tzvetan Mikov wrote:
> Sigbjoern Revheim wrote in message <36486A9A...@nsd.uib.no.nospam>...
> >I have used VC++ 5, and I must say that it was a nightmare to use. Changing
> one
> >line of code and it took 10 minutes to compile. In C++Builder it takes 30
> >seconds. And the code MSVC puts into your code makes it very unreadable. I
> must
> >agree that the help files are good, but the helpviewer is so bad that you
> don't
> >use the helpsystem.
> >
>
> I am surpised to hear this. Do you use precompiled headers, incremental