By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,165 Members | 853 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,165 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

borland vs. microsoft

P: n/a
Hi. Does anybody say that what is better borland c++ or visual c++?
Which compiler does have more help?
Jul 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
24 Replies


P: n/a
serdar wrote:
Hi. Does anybody say that what is better borland c++ or visual c++?
Which compiler does have more help?

As far as I know, Borland has dropped the support for C++ (that is it
does not intend to create a newer version of C++ Builder), and keeps Delphi.
However there are other C++ compiler manufacturers for Windows except
from MS, like Intel.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
serdar wrote:
Hi. Does anybody say that what is better borland c++ or visual c++?
Which compiler does have more help?


As far as I know, Borland has dropped the support for C++ (that is it
does not intend to create a newer version of C++ Builder), and keeps
Delphi.
However there are other C++ compiler manufacturers for Windows except
from MS, like Intel.

I have programmed in Borland C++. Borland can no longer keep up with
Microsoft, they have changed their strategy to focus on JBuilder, their
killer application.
About 5-10 years back Borland was THE compiler, no longer Microsoft has
successfully killed another competetition.

I have heard Intel's compiler is good. You can try that. There are few
sort of open source c++ compiler for windows too ex- Dev C++

http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html

HTH
--
Surendra Singhi

www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi
Jul 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
serdar wrote:
Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
Which compiler does have more help?


The GNU C++ compiler is way better.
Jul 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
Surendra Singhi wrote:
I have programmed in Borland C++. Borland can no longer keep up with
Microsoft, they have changed their strategy to focus on JBuilder, their
killer application.
About 5-10 years back Borland was THE compiler, no longer Microsoft has
successfully killed another competetition.

I am not sure about the "can not keep up" part. I think they pretty
could, after all they support C#. "Delphi 2005" is both Delphi and C#
Builder, and it is pretty good for C#.
You may download the Delphi 2005 Enterprise edition trial and check
yourself.
I have heard Intel's compiler is good. You can try that. There are few
sort of open source c++ compiler for windows too ex- Dev C++

http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html

Yes I know it. Of course there are numerous C++ compilers, but I had
..NET especially in mind. Of course after Longhorn, all Windows compilers
will support "WinFX" (.NET) so things will be better then.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@remove.this.grad.com> wrote in message news:1102080925.957511@athnrd02...
serdar wrote:
Hi. Does anybody say that what is better borland c++ or visual c++?
Which compiler does have more help?

As far as I know, Borland has dropped the support for C++ (that is it
does not intend to create a newer version of C++ Builder), and keeps Delphi.


Borland is supposed to make an announcement on Dec 15 concerning their
future plans with C++. It's likely that they will continue the CBX line and bundle
BCB with Delphi in some way but that's only a guess.

Jul 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
Duane Hebert wrote:
Borland is supposed to make an announcement on Dec 15 concerning their
future plans with C++. It's likely that they will continue the CBX line and bundle
BCB with Delphi in some way but that's only a guess.

That would be great, provided that it would support .NET pretty well (as
Delphi .NET and C# Builder which are bundled together).


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
That would be great, provided that it would support .NET pretty well (as
Delphi .NET and C# Builder which are bundled together).

Actually I just checked my dusty C++ Builder bookmarks that I have been
keeping and in summary I came to this:
http://cppbuilderdevjournal.com/free...ol8_num9.4.htm
Man it looks like those people have no clue about C++, .NET etc!
At first, no rational developer is going to use C++ Builder/C++ Builder
X (I did not know that they were different products!), that does not
support .NET, provided that in the Longhorn era (due to 2006) all code
will be managed (the Windows API will be WinFX, that is .NET).
Also MS supported .NET from within C++ from the very first edition of VS
..NET. So what is this all about that now MS *will* provide .NET support
for C++? Are they living to another planet?
Also I never understood why VCL was always written in Pascal, but this
is the least important issue of all.
All in all, I do not think they will have much success on the C++ field,
because it looks like they have no clue on what is going on!


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #8

P: n/a

"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:co**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
serdar wrote:
Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
Which compiler does have more help?


The GNU C++ compiler is way better.


It isn't and you should know that.
Unless of course you're an open source vigilante whose sole measure of an
application is whether it's open source...

Performance of created executables is consistently poor when using GCC
compared to Borland or Microsoft compilers compiling the same code.
Jul 22 '05 #9

P: n/a
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:co**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
serdar wrote:

Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
Which compiler does have more help?


The GNU C++ compiler is way better.

It isn't and you should know that.
Unless of course you're an open source vigilante whose sole measure of an
application is whether it's open source...

Performance of created executables is consistently poor when using GCC
compared to Borland or Microsoft compilers compiling the same code.

Agreed. But Borland is no longer interested in C++.

Microsoft always hated C++, inspite of (VC++) and everything.
So, for the long run "gcc" is a better choice, as it is not dependent on
anyone company and as long as there are C++ users it will continue to
evolve.

Ultimately depends on what the OPs need are.
--
Surendra Singhi

www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi
Jul 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
Surendra Singhi wrote:
I have programmed in Borland C++. Borland can no longer keep up with
Microsoft, they have changed their strategy to focus on JBuilder,
their killer application.
About 5-10 years back Borland was THE compiler, no longer Microsoft
has successfully killed another competetition.


I am not sure about the "can not keep up" part. I think they pretty
could, after all they support C#. "Delphi 2005" is both Delphi and C#
Builder, and it is pretty good for C#.
You may download the Delphi 2005 Enterprise edition trial and check
yourself.


The reason I said that was because, they were fed up of Microsoft's
shenanigans, it is tough to compete with a company which develops OS,
and API's and everything, especially when you write a compiler for
language like C++, which has pretty low level features.

The found it hard to stop Microsoft in their pursuit of becoming the
everything company.
--
Surendra Singhi

www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi
Jul 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
Jeroen Wenting wrote in news:10*************@corp.supernews.com in
comp.lang.c++:

"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:co**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
serdar wrote:
> Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
> Which compiler does have more help?
The GNU C++ compiler is way better.


It isn't and you should know that.
Unless of course you're an open source vigilante whose sole measure of
an application is whether it's open source...


Or Standard conformance, which is my primary measure, yours is presumably
optimization or is it that the product isn't open source ...

Performance of created executables is consistently poor when using GCC
compared to Borland or Microsoft compilers compiling the same code.


When they compile the code, g++ (3.4+) is far better than both compilers,
g++ 3.x (prior to 3.4) are better than Borland 5.x and comparible with
MSVC 7.1, but if I had to choose one it would be g++ 3.2/3 it has bugs
but at least I can workaround them.

The above doesn't apply to Borlands CBuilderX of course but thats a
just a preview anyway.

Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/
Jul 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
"Surendra Singhi" <ef*******@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:co**********@news.asu.edu...
Microsoft always hated C++, inspite of (VC++) and everything.


What an amazing insight! I wonder why, in light of that
divination, so many product groups at Microsoft use C++
to create what they sell. They must be masochists all!

Mr. Singhi, you had better keep your day job (if you have one)
rather than going into mind-reading or sooth-saying.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: do***********************@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Jul 22 '05 #13

P: n/a
Larry Brasfield wrote:
"Surendra Singhi" <ef*******@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:co**********@news.asu.edu...
Microsoft always hated C++, inspite of (VC++) and everything.

What an amazing insight! I wonder why, in light of that
divination, so many product groups at Microsoft use C++
to create what they sell. They must be masochists all!


Who? I was under the impression most have switched to C#.NET.

--
- gipsy boy
Jul 22 '05 #14

P: n/a
gipsy boy wrote:
Who? I was under the impression most have switched to C#.NET.

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/cppcli.htm


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:17:26 -0800, E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
serdar wrote:
Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
Which compiler does have more help?


The GNU C++ compiler is way better.


The Visual Studio UnintelliSense®

http://www.thedailywtf.com/images/9/...ForTheHelp.gif
Jul 22 '05 #16

P: n/a

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@remove.this.grad.com> wrote in message news:1102178288.392732@athnrd02...
Man it looks like those people have no clue about C++, .NET etc!
Their marketing/management guys don't seem to.

Also I never understood why VCL was always written in Pascal, but this
is the least important issue of all.
VCL is written in Delphi. Not the same thing as Pascal. Delphi
is a proprietary Borland language. Some of the implementation
of classes etc. are different than C++ (ctor/dtor order, virtual
constructors etc.) Some of the problems that this can cause
have made it more important of an issue.

All in all, I do not think they will have much success on the C++ field,
because it looks like they have no clue on what is going on!


They haven't had an actively supported C++ offering in nearly a year.
It will be interesting to see what they announce on Dec 15.
Jul 22 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:16:16 -0500, "Duane Hebert" <sp**@flarn2.com>
wrote:
VCL is written in Delphi. Not the same thing as Pascal. Delphi
is a proprietary Borland language.
Actually, it is a language called "Object Pascal" ... Delphi, as I
understand it, includes the Delphi visual IDE which generates VCL code
in this language known as Object Pascal.
Some of the implementation
of classes etc. are different than C++ (ctor/dtor order, virtual
constructors etc.) Some of the problems that this can cause
have made it more important of an issue.


In addition, the VCL pollutes the global namespace with all their own
namespaces (e.g. "System::") unless you take unusual precautions to
prevent this, and then almost nothing works the way it should. One of
the more blatant mistakes is when defining AnsiString support in VCL
streams, there is a "using namespaces std;" in one of their headers.

Of course, if you don't use the VCL, you can avoid these problems, but
whenever a COM object (ActiveX) is added to the project, Borland
Builder automatically forces you to use VCL. It might be possible to
use the command-line tool MIDL, but I never tried it.

Also, the MDI implementation in Borland Builder 5 was broken ... is
this any better in Builder 6?
All in all, I do not think they will have much success on the C++ field,
because it looks like they have no clue on what is going on!


They haven't had an actively supported C++ offering in nearly a year.
It will be interesting to see what they announce on Dec 15.


If this is another of their "open letters", it's been announced more
than a year ago and never happened. There are standing jokes about it
on the Borland newsgroups, just Google for "open letter" and
"Borland".

I like their free command line compiler, and I love the way Builder 5
(or 6) let you whip up a GUI application in almost no time at all. But
it comes at a price, just as MFC does.

--
Bob Hairgrove
No**********@Home.com
Jul 22 '05 #18

P: n/a

"Bob Hairgrove" <in*****@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:0t********************************@4ax.com...
Actually, it is a language called "Object Pascal" ... Delphi, as I
understand it, includes the Delphi visual IDE which generates VCL code
in this language known as Object Pascal.
I just attribute this to Borland's bizarre logic when it comes to naming
conventions. I've never heard of Object Pascal except with Delphi
but at any rate, it amounts to the same thing. It uses a proprietary
language, based loosely on Pascal.
In addition, the VCL pollutes the global namespace with all their own
namespaces (e.g. "System::") unless you take unusual precautions to
prevent this, and then almost nothing works the way it should. One of
the more blatant mistakes is when defining AnsiString support in VCL
streams, there is a "using namespaces std;" in one of their headers.
This was worse with BCB5/RogueWave as there were using statements
in many of the headers.
Of course, if you don't use the VCL, you can avoid these problems, but
whenever a COM object (ActiveX) is added to the project, Borland
Builder automatically forces you to use VCL. It might be possible to
use the command-line tool MIDL, but I never tried it.
Without VCL there's not much point in using BCB these days. I think
that was the idea behind CBX.

If this is another of their "open letters", it's been announced more
than a year ago and never happened. There are standing jokes about it
on the Borland newsgroups, just Google for "open letter" and
"Borland".
Some of the Borland people and the teamB people have been indicating
that this time there will be some information released. There are rumors
that BCB will be bundled with Delphi and that CBX will be getting a new
release with a new compliant compiler and Dinkumware libraries.

Having lived through the previous promises of "open letters" I'm as sceptical
as anyone but who knows? I would hate to see MS lose the competition.
I like their free command line compiler, and I love the way Builder 5
(or 6) let you whip up a GUI application in almost no time at all. But
it comes at a price, just as MFC does.


I haven't used the free compiler much but I think it's cool that they were one
of the first commercial companies in the Windows market to release their
compilers for free. As for GUI apps, BCB will definitely let you generate
a GUI application in no time at all. The problem comes in with the non-GUI
part of the code that depends on standard compliance.

I would like to see them update CBX as it's supposed to be cross platform
and with a good compiler and no IDE bugs, it would be interesting. Even
if you'd need Qt or something to develop GUI apps.
Jul 22 '05 #19

P: n/a
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:co**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
serdar wrote:

Does anybody say that what is better Borland C++ or Visual C++?
Which compiler does have more help?
The GNU C++ compiler is way better.

It isn't and you should know that.


Please indicate your reasoning. My experience is that g++ is on par or
better than VC++ in all respects I care about. What do you think makes
this untrue ?
Unless of course you're an open source vigilante whose sole measure of an
application is whether it's open source...

Performance of created executables is consistently poor when using GCC
compared to Borland or Microsoft compilers compiling the same code.


I have not experienced this problem. Can you give us an example ?
Jul 22 '05 #20

P: n/a
Duane Hebert wrote:
VCL is written in Delphi. Not the same thing as Pascal.

Delphi is an Object Oriented Pascal.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #21

P: n/a
Duane Hebert wrote:
Without VCL there's not much point in using BCB these days. I think
that was the idea behind CBX.

What is this BuilderX anyway. I downloaded the Enterprise Trial and
uninstalled it the next moment.

The reason is that it has not any RAD at all! Is it supposed that one
should build his Windows application today without a RAD?

Why did they remove the RAD?
Some of the Borland people and the teamB people have been indicating
that this time there will be some information released. There are rumors
that BCB will be bundled with Delphi and that CBX will be getting a new
release with a new compliant compiler and Dinkumware libraries.

Given what I know about C++ developments, what I would do if I was them
would be to release a version of BC++B with a RAD supporting .NET
without any support on VCL .NET, but which would also compile old VCL
code in native mode.
Why they need VCL .NET anyway? The only reason that I can think is in
different semantics between Delphi and .NET (like object destruction
sequence etc that you mentioned) which means that they have to
encapsulate everything with less efficiency as a result.
However if this is the case and they were smart, Delphi .NET should have
different semantics than Delphi, that is it should stick with .NET
semantics and this would also save them from the pain of creating VCL .NET.
A "what has changed" paragraph in the documentation mentioning the new
semantics would had done the job pretty well.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #22

P: n/a

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@remove.this.grad.com> wrote in message news:1102271553.388665@athnrd02...
Duane Hebert wrote: What is this BuilderX anyway. I downloaded the Enterprise Trial and
uninstalled it the next moment.
It's supposed to be their new direction with C++. You're supposed to
be able to use any compiler/toolset you wish. - at least in theory.
Borland was supposed to release a new "fully" compliant compiler.
The reason is that it has not any RAD at all! Is it supposed that one
should build his Windows application today without a RAD?

Why did they remove the RAD?


They initially planned on supplying wxWindows(wxWidget) for the GUI
but seem to have abandoned that idea. I have no clue if they intend
to release a new C++ product with no rad/gui tool. It doesn't make sense
to me but who knows what they are planning.
Jul 22 '05 #23

P: n/a
Duane wrote:
They initially planned on supplying wxWindows(wxWidget) for the GUI
but seem to have abandoned that idea. I have no clue if they intend
to release a new C++ product with no rad/gui tool. It doesn't make sense
to me but who knows what they are planning.

However no one is going to buy that current release because it has a
major flaw, it lacks and RAD, and the wxWindows idea also does not make
sense under the view if .NET/WinFX.
Also since they already had a solution that supported VCL and had a RAD,
and they keep developing VCL, why should they switch to wxWindows?
Either there is someone there that really hates C++, or someone is crazy.


--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
Jul 22 '05 #24

P: n/a

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@remove.this.grad.com> wrote in message news:1102358012.854561@athnrd02...
However no one is going to buy that current release because it has a
major flaw, it lacks and RAD, and the wxWindows idea also does not make
sense under the view if .NET/WinFX.
I think the sales for CBX would confirm that.

Also since they already had a solution that supported VCL and had a RAD,
and they keep developing VCL, why should they switch to wxWindows?


There are some pretty annoying bugs with BCB6. I don't see sticking with that
as an option if the bugs aren't fixed. Some of the bugs have to do with the IDE
so I think they are attempting to bundle it with Delphi to have one IDE to maintain.
Jul 22 '05 #25

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.