Which one?

[MasterGoon]

Is MS Visual C++ the best?

Its not a matter of best, but a matter of what features you prefer.

[Cybrg641]

Even though I haven't tried MVC++, I think Borland C++ Builder is the best. However, there are a lot more books and tutorials dedicated to MVC++ rather than Borland. MVC++ is also cheaper than BC++ Builder.

I recently found out that MSVC++ create smaller and faster code than Borlands free compiler. I made the same prog in both, and the Borland app was twice as big and a little slower. This isnt a big deal, but to some people it matters.

[parksie]

About VC++ against BC++B. C++ Builder is designed for making Windows programs in a RAD form (like VB for C++). Visual C++ is much more powerful, and as a result, leaves a lot of work to you. Yes, MFC does go some way to addressing this, but it could be better.

I prefer VC because it's more compatible, makes better EXEs, and it has a much nicer debugger.

Do you know how to compile using a command line for visual C++?

[parksie]

With no options, it does a compile and link so...

cl file.cpp

will produce file.exe. Look in the documentation for all the information on options.

Originally posted by MasterGoon
Is MS Visual C++ the best?

I think MS Visual C++ is the easiest.

[kb244]

Again, thats going to depend, if you mean VC++ is easist for console, I would have to disagree borland is easiest, but which part of tasks do you mean "Easiest" if you mean based on the MFC, well then I rest my case, but that does have it's downfall, the only way you can find out which is best for "YOU" is to actually try them out, some may like the debugger of VC++, some might like the interface of borland, and so forth, I myself use VC++ because I like the debugger, and so forth, but I like Borland C++ Builder since it's easiest for windows appz (For me anyways), because its' all layed out like VB as far as drag and drop components.

[N2k]

G++ beats all of those. I stay the hell away from VC++, it reminds me of VB too much. I use Borland for windows...so I don't use it much.

[kb244]

VC++ reminds you of VB, it resemebles nothing like VB, Borland C++ Builder looks more like VB, VC++ is mosty typed, it isnt as visual as Borland C++ Builder.

[Stephen Bazemore]

What the hell is G++ ??

[kb244]

Sounds like he's refering to GCC or DJGPP the free 32bit console compiler.

[parksie]

It's the GNU C++ compiler.

Also, VC++ is dead easy for console apps .

[N2k]

uh...no...Borland isn't more like VB. I have all three...I should know.

I just wanna say that i feel way better when i have hand scripted the whole program (including the dialogs) and then compile using the command line. Now if you do it that way, VC++ is better, but i cant seem to figure out how to compile using the command line in VC++, so i am currently using Borlands free C++ compiler.

[Paul282]

Originally posted by N2k
uh...no...Borland isn't more like VB. I have all three...I should know.

I agree with kb244, N2K is speaking out of his A$$!

I have all three too, big deal, it's as simple as

VB = RAD IDE
BCB = RAD IDE
VC++ = NOT a RAD (not really even visual)

Have you ever written anything in VC++ ? it's nothing like VB! I wrote a few apps in BCB 4.0 pro BECAUSE it was like VB and a similar environment (different language of course)

BCB (like VB) uses property pages for configuring controls at design time and it's drag and drop (like VB) .

and as for...

I stay the hell away from VC++, it reminds me of VB too much. I use Borland for windows...so I don't use it much.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. If you use G++ then I can see why VC++ might remind you of VB... unless you're talking about old Borland C++ and NOT Borland C++ Builder


--------------------------------------

I used G++ in linux for cgi apps a while back. I thought GCC was a C++ compiler (and maybe it is) but I couldn't get it to compile my c++ code so I used G++. It's also a GNU license compiler although I'm not sure about connections with GCC if any exist.

[parksie]

GCC is the GNU C compiler
G++ is the GNU C++ compiler

...although I think a lot of linux distros now have one compiler that does both (egcs...I think).

VC++, though, creates much smaller programs than BCB, albeit with more effort.

[kb244]

Of course you would have to put in quite an effort into VC++, and hopefully not have to use MFC, if you are refering to regular projects in VC++, it's smaller because you are using MFC, which most of the memory resides in the MFC dlls that have to be distributed, if you compare the BCB VCL interface libraries that are compiled into the exe, you'll notice they are quite smaller than trying to distribute a VC++ app, with full blown MFC files, on the other hand, MFC dlls are more readily availible on most people's computers.

[Paul282]

That's why powerbasic rules!

People'll start getting sick of me saying this but 10k - 20k stand alone exe's are hard to beat, same program static linked in BCB was 650k stand alone.

Powerbasic is to VB what ANSI C is to BCB

32bit windows apps in fraction of the size