home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: peer-news.britain.eu.net!uknet!owl-uk!news
- From: Alan C Francis <alanf@owl-uk.co.uk>
- Subject: Re: VC++ and BC++, which one is better?
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Message-ID: <310F96A0.2784@owl-uk.co.uk>
- Sender: news@owl-uk.co.uk (News system)
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Organization: Office Workstations, Ltd.
- References: <4en1i2$qm6@umacss1.umac.mo>
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 16:19:44 GMT
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)
-
- Calvin wrote:
- >
- > VC++ and BC++, which one is easier to writing windows program?
-
- Black pen or Blue pen, which one is better for writing letters with ?
- The answer is that it all comes down to personal preference. The
- choice of compiler is a *RELIGIOUS* issue to alot of programmers.
-
- My views are as follows :
-
- If you are an experienced Object-Oriented programmer who wants to move
- into Windows, then Borland is probably best. The Object Windows ibrary
- (OWL) is much more "O-O" than MFC. The library is easier for an OO
- person to understand.
-
- If, however, you are an experienced Windows programmer trying to learn
- O-O and C++, then VC++ is probably best. It is a very thin O-O layer
- on top of existing Windows Structures. It should be quite easy for a
- windows programmer to pick up the Microsoft Framework Classes (MFC).
-
- If you don't know either C++ or Windows, the choice is yours :-)
-
- I'm happy with VC++ 4.0, although I still think that OWL is a better
- library than MFC.
-
- Alan
-
- P.S. As I said, it's a *RELIGIOUS* issue and I risk flames aplenty to
- bring you this information :-)
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
- Alan C Francis | Lego is a potent three-dimensional
- Office Workstations, Ltd | modelling tool and a language in
- Edinburgh, Scotland | itself - Douglas Coupland, Microserfs
-