M$ Visual C++ or Inprise/Borland C++?
Cary Scofield
Okay, it's time to start another religious battle ;-)
Which is better on WNT 4.0ws: Micro$oft's Visual C++ IDE or
Inprise/Borland's C++ IDE? And state your reason(s) why.
Thanks.
Eric
navigation. Microsoft's IDE is designed for multi-platform
development. So, if you have VC++, VB, JAva, etc... Thus, you have
Inter Developer. Borland is Borland. C++ is C++. Even though Bopland
has Delphi and JBuilder, they are not integrated. However, the ease of
use in Borland, personally, is far better. Beside's, Borland is a hell
of a lot faster and more to the core than VC++ (whhy do they call it
"Visual" C++, I'll never know. C++ Builer is far more visual than
VC++). Borland has C++ 5.0 and C++ Builder 3, which is the upgrade to
C++ 5. I have not tried C++ Builder yet, but have heard a lot of good
things about it. C++ 5.0 has full MFC support though if you use this.
Besides all this, it's a great learning tool also. A lot of begineers
use Borland's simply because of the ease of use. Best of luck.
--
Eric
ntuser@*NOSPAM*teleport.com
---------------------------
Remove *NOSPAM* to reply by e-mail
Kevin Berry
Agreed. Borland's is the better product. C++Builder is better for the
following reasons:
1. easy development - the beginner can get into it very quickly
2. easy access to assembly language for power (embedded in the C++ code)
3. despite what Eric says - the integration with other Borland tools is good
because you can mix and match Delphi components and forms into your
C++Builder projects. But I know why he said it - 'cos the IDE is not one
IDE like Visual Studio is. I also agree with him that this is a plus. It
comes down to this: "lowest-common denominator" loss of functionality - if
you try and be too general to handle many different development tools you
will end up sacrificing some functionality.
4. fast - it seems faster than VC++'s compiler, but I stand corrected...
Anyway it comes close to Delphi's compiler speed so it doesn't do badly!
5. visual design environment - not like Microsoft's so-called "Visual" C++
6. excellent database support (Client/Server edition)
okay there have to be some cons so here they are...
1. documentation seemed a bit bad! but in some ways the Microsoft
documentation is excessive so I'd say neither IDE is particularly good on
the documentation side.
2. I can't think of any others.
But when it comes down to it... Delphi is the best choice for a development
tool. You can't get a faster compiler than Delphi's and the IDE is an
absolute pleasure.
BTW, I've only worked with C++Builder 1.0 and Visual C++ 5.0 - haven't seen
C++Builder 3.0 yet but it sounds great.
Cheers,
Kevin.
Eric wrote in message <35612C...@teleport.com>...
Norman Goldstein
Cary Scofield (cp...@gte.com) wrote:
: Okay, it's time to start another religious battle ;-)
:
: Which is better on WNT 4.0ws: Micro$oft's Visual C++ IDE or
: Inprise/Borland's C++ IDE? And state your reason(s) why.
:
: Thanks.
Here are two issues regarding M$ Visual C++ or Inprise/Borland C++,
for which I don't know the answers, but are important factors
in deciding between them. My personal preference is for Borland.
I'd like to code up a device driver with BCC 5 on NT 4.
I've heard that I should not use Borland, but buy Microsoft's
Visual C environment. Please, say it ain't so.
Any suggestions on how to link in a COFF library (used by VisualC++)
with BCC-generated
object modules (that are in OMF format)? TLINK does not handle
COFF (as far as I can make out).
Norman Goldstein nor...@mda.ca
MacDonald Dettwiler & Assc. (604) 231-2779 (Voice)
13800 Commerce Parkway (604) 278-2117 (FAX)
Richmond BC, Canada V6V 2J3 http://www.mda.ca