Visual C++ vs C++ Builder pros/cons
John G. Miller
over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
Thanks,
-John
Edward Diener
on Inprise's own component technology that also lets the programmer drill down
to the Windows API if necessary. Also a pro is that the developer can easily
design and add their own components as well as save their own forms and data
modules in an Object Repository, ie. the ease of reuse is incredible. All this
leads to much quicker development of a basic windows or internet application.
Another pro is also live database development in the RAD environment.
The biggest cons are: still some problems using ActiveX and minimal support
for creating ActiveX and, as usual, Inprise's poor documentation of most
everything. I say poor because it used to be atrocious but it has got better.
Another con, which will always be the case, is that Inprise can not keep up
with new Windows technology at the RAD level nearly as fast as Microsoft can
at their programming level. Much of the latest Microsoft SDKs take a good bit
of tweaking to work with C++ Builder.
Peter Steele
development. When we tackle a new project here one of the first things we do
is determine what customs components we will need for the particular
project. Some components end up being very specialized and are added to a
component package specific to the particular project. Other components are
general purpose and we add these to our general purpose component suite,
which of course we can use in other projects as well.
Jim Melsom
>
> I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
> over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
> don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
> from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
> C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
The biggest thing for me is the sheer incredible time saving on
application development and, very importantly, on application
MAINTENANCE. With Builder you get to the core of an application's
purpose much faster because of RAD interface building, and yet the
programming power you can bring to bear on the problem is still 100%
C++. And if (I mean WHEN) an application needs modification and
redesign, Builder can save you major amounts of time over and over. This
applies to both corporate aplication development and software product
development.
I converted a major project from a C++ framework and got up the Builder
learning curve in a couple of months. Since then I have been able to
make major feature additions and design improvements with great ease
(and enjoyment). One example is making every text element in my
program's user interface (menus, dialogs, etc) completely
user-definable. I did this because the program's economics mean we can't
internationalize it ourselves. It took less than 2 weeks to do (I had
estimated 3 gruelling months), and it worked almost perfectly the first
time out. Our users love it.
That's just one example. I could go on, but the short of it is you can
produce better software in less time by using Builder.
--
Jim Melsom
Gemteck Environmental Software Inc.
Sven Frederikson
between databases and apps (hard to explain...)
I've tryed with VC5 first, give up after 2 weeks and switch to Builder
(that was the time where BCB1 came out)
The app was finished in 3 months, we've counted with 5!
You'll save lots of time with Builder
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:23:24 -0500, "John G. Miller" <jmi...@pfs.com>
wrote:
>I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
>over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
>don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
>from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
>C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-John
>
>
Marcio Pontes
MFC has very little to offer besides the "raw" Windows API. C++Builder may
have less support from library creators, but that is changing.
John G. Miller escreveu na mensagem <73ebpc$8u...@forums.borland.com>...
Stefan Michel
"John G. Miller" wrote:
> I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
> over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
> don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
> from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
> C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
>
IMHO C++Builder has a totally different starting point as MSVC has. The
Foundation Classes have a sort of framwork to create a "standard"-application
with toolbars and view of documents. If you want to do somthing which does not
completly fit into this framwork, you run into a big problem.
On the other hand, Delphi and BC++Builder has a concept which is discribable
as LEGO-playing. You have couple of components with which you plug your
application together. To create the same standard application like in MSVC you
probably have to do more work. But you are free to do things besides that.
Further more the Borland stuff is easy to extent by custom components by 3rd
party developers and even by your self. MSVC has only some sort of plugins
which modify the source of your project. Once you used such a tool, you have
problems to get rid of the included source if you want to remove it again.
ciao
Stefan
gerry simpson
>Hi,
>
>"John G. Miller" wrote:
>
>> I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
>> over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
>> don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
>> from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
>> C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
>>
>
>IMHO C++Builder has a totally different starting point as MSVC has. The
>Foundation Classes have a sort of framwork to create a "standard"-application
>with toolbars and view of documents. If you want to do somthing which does not
>completly fit into this framwork, you run into a big problem.
Just like we did with BC++ !!
I think that this whole discussion comparing VC++ and BCB is somewhat
bogus, you really have to look at Visual Studio for a true comparison.
If you are going to compare VC++ by itself to anything, then compare
it to BC++.
By using Visual Basic solely for the GUI and VC++ for the guts you
basically have MSBuilder without the VCL to hold you back.
VB can do the same things as BCB as far as GUI design goes and I would
even say that the VB component property sheets make things that much
easier/quicker. Do you have a problem with VB for the GUI ? Why,
you don't seem to mind using Object Pascal in Builder !
>On the other hand, Delphi and BC++Builder has a concept which is discribable
>as LEGO-playing. You have couple of components with which you plug your
>application together. To create the same standard application like in MSVC you
>probably have to do more work. But you are free to do things besides that.
>Further more the Borland stuff is easy to extent by custom components by 3rd
>party developers and even by your self. MSVC has only some sort of plugins
>which modify the source of your project. Once you used such a tool, you have
>problems to get rid of the included source if you want to remove it again.
Once again - with VB as your GUI 'framework', you've got A LOT more
components to choose from and considering that activex actually works
in VB/VC you have A WHOLE LOT MORE !!
As for developing/using your own custom components, since both VC++
and BCB are non-visual in this respect, and there is really no
difference between creating/using/installing a BCB component in a .BPL
on the BCB component palette and a VC++ component in an .OCX on the VB
component palette, I would say that you are further ahead with VC++
because you have a better IDE (class wizard, inspectors, debugger ...)
and a non-OP crippled C++ to work with. Additionally, OCX components
can be used outside of VB/VC unlike VCL components which can be used
ONLY within BCB.
I have been a long time borland user but have recently been forced to
try out MS due to BCB lack of activex support. And frankly, I'm glad
I did. I still like BCB, and think that the completely integrated
approach is the way to go - although IMHO the VCL-crippling was a big
mistake, along with the vanishing feature list ( from BC++ ) Borland
has the right idea but is just dropping the ball in too many places.
Maybe BCB is evolving and is still just emerging from it's infancy -
then why have I been asked to pay full price for the 1st 2 BETA
releases if, as always, the 'next' release will address concerns that
were brought to light with, and still exist, since the 1st release ?
I also think that it is probably only a matter of time before MS
tightens up the integration between the studio components to achieve
the same ends without necessarily compromising any of the individual
components in the process - except for the fact that you have to
swicth between applications for GUI and non-GUI development - they
have it now !!!
Wyatt Wong
(http://www.itecuk.com/devrev/index.htm) for reviews on C++Builder 3
(Issue 3, April 1998) and Visual C++ 6.0 (Issue 7, December 1998).
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:23:24 -0500, "John G. Miller" <jmi...@pfs.com>
wrote:
>I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
>over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
>don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
>from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
>C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-John
>
>
jerry
Both have pluses and minus'. There is alot more information about and
for VC++6, and sample code to pickup. Borland seems easier and simplier
to use. Like you said- VC has a good starting point for the average
view/doc based app. Cant really say which is better cause I like them
both.
Stefan Michel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> "John G. Miller" wrote:
>
> > I have to create a report showing the pro's and con's of using C++ Builder
> > over Visual C++. I am not familar with version 6.0 of Visual C++, so I
> > don't know what new features were added. I would like to get some input
> > from the C++ Builder community (of course I am doing the same for Visual
> > C++). Hopefully I can keep my group using C++ Builder.
> >
>
> IMHO C++Builder has a totally different starting point as MSVC has. The
> Foundation Classes have a sort of framwork to create a "standard"-application
> with toolbars and view of documents. If you want to do somthing which does not
> completly fit into this framwork, you run into a big problem.
> On the other hand, Delphi and BC++Builder has a concept which is discribable
> as LEGO-playing. You have couple of components with which you plug your
> application together. To create the same standard application like in MSVC you
> probably have to do more work. But you are free to do things besides that.
> Further more the Borland stuff is easy to extent by custom components by 3rd
> party developers and even by your self. MSVC has only some sort of plugins
> which modify the source of your project. Once you used such a tool, you have
> problems to get rid of the included source if you want to remove it again.
>
> ciao
> Stefan