borland, vc++ , what to use?

sde · 03-16-2003, 06:14 PM

I have borland 5, vc++6 ( student edition) and vc++.net

i have a few books for vc++, vc++.net, .. and today i jsut bought a borland 5 book.

anyone have any preference over the other? i thought it would be cool to use borland because kylix for linux is going to be pretty much the same when released ( if it's not released already .. i only know what i've read. )

any insight would be much appreciated.

Valmont · 03-16-2003, 08:19 PM

I assume you are learning C++.

In that case it really doesn't matter. The differences between borland and visual c++ are so small, usually only veterans might be able to do something with it.

They say:
Borland has a more up to date C++ language.
Microsft's MFC is more mature than borland's OWL.

To speak for myself, I dislike things like: "better this better that C++ brand" these days.
Once you get familiar with more advanced topics you will be very able to shape your style and choose whatever suits you at that moment.

Just have fun,
Val

abc123 · 03-16-2003, 10:56 PM

what is the mfc anyway?

Travis Dane · 03-17-2003, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abc123
what is the mfc anyway?

An easy way to program Win32 based applications with C++.

VC++ .NET is better than VC++ 6 in all ways (Except it's recource
sucking habit). The difference between Borland 5 and VC++ .NET
is for the most, The IDE. VC++ .NET is dominant compared with
Borland's IDE (At least that's my opinion). Also, VC++ .NET is
99% Ansi C++ compliant, I can't say the same for Borland.

joe_bruin · 03-17-2003, 09:55 AM

the question is: what are you trying to accomplish?

if you're just learning c++, it doesn't really matter.
if you're trying to write a windows (win32/mfc) program, stick with visual studio.
if you're trying for portable gui apps, borland may be the thing for you.
if you're trying to write highly optimized code, consider intel's x86 optimized c++ compiler.
if you're writing a unix-style app, or one that will most likely be ported *everywhere* (especially unix), you might want to try gcc (mingw is native for windows, or the cygwin environment uses a unix emulation layer).

Valmont · 03-17-2003, 05:07 PM

Or do as Val:
Install the Win32 version of Qt 2 under VC++ 6 and start making easy to port proggies

In fact, now I am here, let me spend some time to vouch for the Win32 Qt2 version. It offers great, neat wrappers and platform independant system.

Found out more at:
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt2-win32/
It is GPL so it is free. You MUST have VC++6 tho to use it. Any VC++ 6 version will do.

Hehe, why am I not a sales man? (Argh don't answer lol).

- Val -

sde · 03-17-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Hehe, why am I not a sales man? (Argh don't answer lol).

i will anyway .. because you can't sell GPL stuff

DesertWolf · 03-17-2003, 11:41 PM

Go with borland ... keeps you from getting stuck with MS sh**. Unless of course you want to program just for MS then go with C++.net.

Travis Dane · 03-18-2003, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DesertWolf
keeps you from getting stuck with MS sh**.

Your arguments?

If you want to go for portability i suggest you go with Borland,
For Windows Applications, Take VC++ .NET no doubt about it.

Valmont · 03-18-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sde
i will anyway .. because you can't sell GPL stuff

devin · 03-19-2003, 05:19 PM

Only problem with .NET is that it requires you to download a 20 MB runtime (well for C#).

VBRUNxxx.DLL were small..
MFCxx.DLL were also pretty small files

but .NET now requires 20 megs.. damn. If you want users to run your program and they don't have Windows XP they'll have to download this as well.

Oh well.

ender · 03-27-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmont
Or do as Val:
Install the Win32 version of Qt 2 under VC++ 6 and start making easy to port proggies

In fact, now I am here, let me spend some time to vouch for the Win32 Qt2 version. It offers great, neat wrappers and platform independant system.

Found out more at:
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt2-win32/
It is GPL so it is free. You MUST have VC++6 tho to use it. Any VC++ 6 version will do.

Hehe, why am I not a sales man? (Argh don't answer lol).

- Val -

Really don't mean to start war or anything, but I perfer wxWindows over Qt2. It is also platform dependent, doesn't depend on VC++, uses native widgets instead of making its own on the fly (meaning it uses commctrl32.dll instead of qt2.dll or whatever) and it supports a lot of OSes. Again, I don't mean to start a war or anything. Oh yeah, and it too has a wonderful framework. http://www.wxwindows.org.

Just my thoughts, sorry they are outdated,
Ted Morse

Valmont · 03-27-2003, 10:20 AM

Interesting topic ender. I am going to find out more in the weekend.

But platform IN-dependency is a must for me.
But I'll check the site out soon.

- Val -

Valmont · 03-27-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travis Dane
An easy way to program Win32 based applications with C++.

VC++ .NET is better than VC++ 6 in all ways (Except it's recource
sucking habit). The difference between Borland 5 and VC++ .NET
is for the most, The IDE. VC++ .NET is dominant compared with
Borland's IDE (At least that's my opinion). Also, VC++ .NET is
99% Ansi C++ compliant, I can't say the same for Borland.

TD, you call MFC "easy"?

- Val -

ender · 03-27-2003, 10:29 AM

Sorry...I meant that wxWindows is platform INdependant, sorry, because without that tid-bit, it would be worse than Qt2, which is as well..sorry about that...

Ted Morse