Another question

What's the different between Visual C++ (VC) and Turbo C++?


Sorry to be askin' so many questions, but that's just what happens when you want to learn something new (or try to) .

[HarryW]

I haven't heard of Turbo C++. Visual C++ is just Microsoft's version of C++, the 'Visual' bit refers to the wondows programming aspects like MFC etc I think.

VC++ is Object Oriented.

Originally posted by Megatron
VC++ is Object Oriented.

What do you mean?

[HarryW]

Err... C++ in any form is object oriented - that's the whole reason Bjarne Stroustrup developed it, to be an object oriented adaptation of C.

Visual C++ just refers to the Windows aspects, but that's all API stuff I think. As far as I know (I'm a relative newbie to C++ too) MFC and all that are just wrappers around API functions. VC++ also has ATL too I think, which is the Active Template Library, which in turn is something to do with COM, a Microsoft pioneered thing I think, with an open-source rival called CORBA.

Please correct me I'm wrong on any if this.

[Yonatan]

Turbo C++ is made by Borland, and Visual C++ is made by Microsoft.

Visual C++ lets you access the Win32API very easily:
You just have to include some certain LIB files (the most common ones are automatically included for you), and add this line: #include <windows.h>

Also, Visual C++ lets you use MFC, which makes programming even easier.

Originally posted by HarryW
Err... C++ in any form is object oriented - that's the whole reason Bjarne Stroustrup developed it, to be an object oriented adaptation of C.

I meant OO in a sense like VB is.

[parksie]

I thought VB didn't have proper OO?

So VC++ cost a lot? Whereas Turbo C++ = very low price. But Turbo C++ seems to be a good thing to have as well. VC++ sounds good though...now I have to go buy that off of ebay now . Sounds like VC++ is easier than Turbo. And another thing, when people make stuff in C++, and it works in windows, they have used VC++ to make it? Is it easier than Turbo? Or basically the same coding?

[parksie]

You can make Windows programs in any C++ compiler. Visual C++ just makes it slightly easier with its inbred (sic) resource editor.

The code will be almost identical, though.

VC++ is the easiest BECUZE of little things. Stuff like when you type

Function(blah, blah)

a box will pop up and tell you what you need. Stuff like that makes it fast and easy.

[parksie]

Er...that's only version 6

Really? Oh, well ive only ever used 6.

[Cybrg641]

I personally LOVE Borland C++ Builder. It has the UI almost identical to VB. But it also costs a lot and there isn't very many books that deal specifically with it. I have never used VC++ so I wouldn't know what to say.

[parksie]

C++ Builder 3 came free on the cover CD of PC Plus a few months ago...if anyone's interested.

Do they have a web site i can go to to get it?

[hitcgar]

Actually Turbo C++ was Borland's original C++ flavor.

Then they came out with Turbo C++ for Windows. I started
programming in C++ using that package in '91 and did lots
of projects with it. Simple and easy to understand but not
visual.

This contained the original OWL class library (way better than (MFC))

This version was cheap but oriented 16-bit. Later they
produced Borland C++ which had it all but still not very
visual. Then they came out with C++ Builder which is still
the best in many areas. Although VC++ has some better points.

Turbo's debugger was console window oriented so not
great. But that was years ago. At the time there was no
VC++ and Microsoft C++ 7.0 was ****. No developers I know
could stand it. Borland always had the better product
until the market pressures for MS-compatible everything and
MS' unlimited $$$ resources put the screws to Borland which
then became Inprise and is still having some trouble
competing - very sad 'cause they were always way agead of MS.

I learned Windows programming the hard way in those days -
i.e. handling almost everything yourself since there were
few visual tools and those that were generated crappy,
redundant code with loads of useless lines that could be
replaced by half as many by any dev. worth his salt.

So, if you want to get into the guts of early OOP for windows try and find an old copy - if ya do tell me where you got it - I'm feeling nostalgic