PDA

Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Borland Vs. Microsoft


sail3005
Jan 10th, 2001, 06:28 PM
Does anyone have any opinions about borland c++ builder 5, and microsoft visual c++ 6, as to which is better? Just in general i mean.

SteveCRM
Jan 10th, 2001, 06:37 PM
personally I like ms a little better. Some things are little such as the color coding instead of using bold and italics. And I like F5 compiling the program while in borland you have to push the compile button.

just my $0.02

Jan 10th, 2001, 09:16 PM
if you are concerned about exe size -- Get VC++, it makes exe's at least 150 kb smaller for a simple hello world program.

parksie
Jan 11th, 2001, 03:22 PM
VC++ tends to require a lot less to be distributed with your application as well.

SteveCRM
Jan 11th, 2001, 03:24 PM
wow, ms has gotten more praise here then it did on the whole forums in years.

PsyVision
Jan 11th, 2001, 04:05 PM
Ms is my choice of app coz i cannot get ***** borland going :)

Jan 11th, 2001, 06:51 PM
Ive never used Borland C++ Builder, but ive used alomost any other borland product and VC++ is better. The only problem i have with VC++ is that it cant make DOS programs. But Turbo C++ can, so i use both. If VC++ could make DOS programs, i might never even touch Borland products.

sail3005
Jan 11th, 2001, 07:10 PM
i just think that is kind of stupid. you would think that since microsft does make ms-dos, that they would at least have some simple capability to make dos programs.

Jan 11th, 2001, 08:06 PM
what are you talking about?

Turbo C++ does not make DOS programs... unless, if you are refering to version 3, which I have only used once.

and I am pretty sure BCB can compile DOS programs, because I think it runs on *Nix boxes too... and if it compiles *nix, then it should compile DOS....

HarryW
Jan 11th, 2001, 08:39 PM
DOS is 16 bit though innit?

Jan 11th, 2001, 08:44 PM
think so..... not too sure tho.... I've used DOS Console, and only the actual DOS O/S to format my computer..

parksie
Jan 12th, 2001, 12:09 PM
Console Apps are not DOS :)

They're 32-bit command prompt programs, running in a multithreaded environment.

Real DOS programs are only 16-bit: As in, int=2 bytes not 4.

That's why Watcom C++ came with DOS/4GW.

Jan 12th, 2001, 01:27 PM
I know DOS != console

but it's less confusing to say DOS console.....

:rolleyes:

MPrestonf12
Jan 14th, 2001, 08:44 PM
is the programs you make with mvc++ going to run on win 2000? some where i heard there may be a problem..

Jan 14th, 2001, 09:41 PM
Well... I just got borland C++ builder 5.0 professional....

it's a nice compiler, but, I can't find the option to compile with the runtimes, and I cannot find the option to make an application with only API + C++(no VCL)..... :confused:

Cybrg641
Jan 14th, 2001, 11:03 PM
Dennis
Click on File|New then Click on "Console Wizard" and select Win32 GUI and EXE.

It might be different though(I am using v4), but I doubt it.

Jan 14th, 2001, 11:18 PM
thanks,

it was a little different but not much.


new -> console wizard -> select C++(instead of C), uncheck "console application", unchceck "use VCL" and check or uncheck whether you want it to be multithreaded or not.



Thanks :D

DiEDa
Jan 28th, 2001, 06:26 AM
Microsoft is better

Vlatko
Jan 28th, 2001, 07:03 AM
For me VC++ 6.0 is definetly better. The exe's are smaller, faster. The borland IDE is full with bugs. Borland's 'code insight' is slow and buggy. The entire Builder is slow. On my Celeron 400,128MB RAM,Win98 it needs 30 seconds to start (very very slow) and From what i heard almost all proffesional software development companies use VC++.

Jan 28th, 2001, 10:56 AM
Actually, in Borland C++ Builder 5.0, the executables are an average of 15 kilobytes smaller than those of the release mode in Visual C++ 6.0.

And I haven't really tested the speed difference of Borland C++ Builder 5.0 and Visual C++ 6.0.

And Borland C++ Builder does take too long to load :(

and the IDE looks horrible, it's all SDI, so it has no "background". Plus it took me forever to find out how to make a normal Win32 App, the option is under "console wizard"

If I had to make a choice, and only use one compiler, I would probably use Visual C++, especially for DLL's, C++ Builder screws with the names of the functions..

But I'm happy with both :D

kourosh
Jan 28th, 2001, 02:19 PM
It was really interesting reading about others opinion but at last i didn't get it if there is any way to make dos programs. I mean win16 not win32.

parksie
Jan 28th, 2001, 02:31 PM
Visual C++ cannot create 16-bit programs.

Trust me...you don't want to try programming in 16-bit...it gets messy :(

Well...if you don't mind staying within 64K it's just as simple, but past that you need to mess around with segments and offsets, near/far pointers and all sorts of other junk.

What do you need it for?

DiEDa
Jan 28th, 2001, 02:37 PM
I realy hate borland fdi style

kourosh
Feb 1st, 2001, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by parksie
Visual C++ cannot create 16-bit programs.

Trust me...you don't want to try programming in 16-bit...it gets messy :(

Well...if you don't mind staying within 64K it's just as simple, but past that you need to mess around with segments and offsets, near/far pointers and all sorts of other junk.

What do you need it for?

Nothing really I was just wondering if i can write programs for reall dos. By reall dos I mean for example when you turn on your system and you get to a dos command line.

But if it is not possible I don't think I am going to botter research on it.

Thank anyway.

parksie
Feb 1st, 2001, 08:00 AM
You can but you'll need a 16-bit compiler such as early versions of Borland which I think can be found for free.

Anyone know?

DiEDa
Feb 1st, 2001, 11:09 AM
simple B-O-R-L-A-N-D S-U-X

sail3005
Feb 1st, 2001, 05:28 PM
i don't know, i have both, and i have learned a lot since i originally made this post. I think that borland is very powerful, but the interface and layout is just more confusing.

substring
Feb 1st, 2001, 09:34 PM
If you are building Windows application, use the VC++ instead of C++ Builder which is also a Windows RAD tool. Afterall, Microsoft has the "Home Field Advantage". Otherwise, Borland Turbo C++ is still the best.

Hope this helps.

substring.

sail3005
Feb 1st, 2001, 10:51 PM
well what exactly is the difference between turbo c++ and c++ builder?

Wynd
Feb 16th, 2001, 05:34 PM
I dunno, I haven't used Borland C++ but I have used JBuilder and I don't really like it that much, the layout and interface is just confusing.

sail3005
Feb 16th, 2001, 06:01 PM
yeah, they use a lot of non standard keyboard shortcuts, whcih doesn't help anyone...

Feb 17th, 2001, 01:55 PM
Turbo C++ is a non-ansi C++ compiler. It's great for learning, because it's very easy to use, and there are no console windows, just the borland EZWin.

It can also make UIs, but you have to use the older functions(for win3.1, like CreateWindow, RegisterClass, etc. Rather than CreateWindowEx, RegisterClassEx, etc).

IMO the worst part about Turbo C++, is that it doesn't come with the STL String library, infact it doesn't come with any STL libraries. You need to write, or get a 'third party' string library.

Here are a few header files that contain STL functionality:
http://www.lvp.com/data/cpluspczip.zip

substring
Feb 20th, 2001, 08:13 AM
Forget about VC++, move on to C#, hahaha.

substring.

Feb 20th, 2001, 11:19 AM
Forget C#, move onto assembly!

Feb 20th, 2001, 03:04 PM
Forget Assembly, real programmers use Binary.

sail3005
Feb 20th, 2001, 03:08 PM
i prefer punchcards for the ultimate in convience!

Feb 20th, 2001, 03:59 PM
Viva la switchs and LEDs.

parksie
Feb 20th, 2001, 04:02 PM
I prefer a needle and a van-der-graaf generator :p