home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: netcom.com!bastion1
- From: bastion1@netcom.com (Gregory Weston)
- Subject: Re: What about Symantec C++ ?
- Message-ID: <bastion1DMxAHH.J7y@netcom.com>
- Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
- References: <ABSg78nSpU@vsi.kiev.ua>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 13:51:17 GMT
- Sender: bastion1@netcom18.netcom.com
-
- In article <ABSg78nSpU@vsi.kiev.ua>, Igor A. Krivokon <igor@vsi.kiev.ua> wrote:
- >I need to buy a compiler to make Windows 3.1 and 95 applications.
- >There are a lot of articles about VC++ vs. Borland C++ in this group.
- >But I heard nothing here about Symantec C++ 7.0+.
- >...
- >The question is: why such a good thing is not used broadly? Is it value to
- >buy or it is better to choose the reliable VC++?
-
- They may very well have an extremely good compiler, but the environment
- as a whole is the worst I've seen for any language on any platform.
- Scarily, it even falls far short of their own Mac-hosted C++ environment.
- In addition, the compiler leaks, and writing Hello, World in a 'console'
- window was non-trivial. I never could get cout to show me anything.
-
- What I can't figure out is that I frequently see people raving about how
- much better the environment is than Borland's (which, to me, is
- uncluttered and straight-forward). If you need to build 3.1 apps, I
- wouldn't go for VC++...they may include a compiler to generate 16-bit
- executables, but I question MS's willingness or ability to support Win31
- developers.
-
- Greg
- --
- *** Bastion Products: Where classic quality meets modern technology. ***
- Well, in fact, this post DOES represent the opinions of Bastion Products.
- How's that for a switch?
-