home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.magicnet.net!usenet
- From: catello@magicnet.net (Michael Catello)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Microsoft Visual C++ vs. Borland C++
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 03:26:06 GMT
- Organization: MagicNet, Inc.
- Message-ID: <4jacau$ibg@comet.magicnet.net>
- References: <4iria4$i76@granite.sentex.net> <4is07r$9cc@news1.h1.usa.pipeline.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pm7-14.magicnet.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- grantp@usa.pipeline.com(Pete Grant) wrote:
-
- >Except that MSVC++1.52 does not implement the recent (like last 5 years)
- >changes to the language. It does not support templates, exceptions,
- >c++ casts, namespaces, etc., etc., etc.... Also, MFC is not very
- >object-oriented compared to OWL. IMO it's not a good C++ learning tool.
-
- As well as 1.52, when you get MSVC++ 4.0 (and 4.1) you get the Win32s
- subsystem to use if you need to target 16 bit Windows. If your
- application does not do advanced 32 bit things like multi-threading,
- or use too many non-Microsoft libraries (which you have little control
- over the integrity of), it seems to work pretty well. I have been
- having good luck with it on a current project but recommend frequent
- 'reality-checks' of your apps in OldWindows to ensure portability. By
- doing this, I get the luxury of working in the 4.0 development
- environment and make use of most of the features, both C++
- (namespaces, templates, etc.) as well as advanced tools for windows
- app development.
-
- What makes OWL more object-oriented? I haven't used Borland's products
- in a couple of years but have been real happy with MSVC. (Borland
- really pissed me off once; I had been using BC++ for a while, and they
- had a big push for their ObjectVision product which they marketed to
- developers. I purchased it when a Borland Salesperson called me and a
- month later they dropped the product. This was enuf to completely turn
- me off on the company).
-
- >I guess you mean onus. I think that learning the langugage *is*
- >the reponsibility of the individual. Microsoft may make the
- >development of Windows applications easier, but for learning
- >the language, this "easiness" can actually be detrimental. It's
- >easy for me to picture someone with a year or more development
- >experience with MSVC++ but having only a shallow knowledge of
- >the C++ language itself.
-
- I get the impression that you think that making development easier is
- a bad thing. There will always be bad programmers who never experiment
- with the language and try to extend their experiences and learning,
- but who are just out to get the job done (much to the chagrin of those
- of us that have to go in after as cleanup). These people can never be
- saved or helped by even the most pure of environments. But for the
- rest of us, making development easier for the redundant tasks that
- were all too common in old Win SDK days is like manna from heaven.
-
- IMHO,
- -Michael.
-
- /*
- * catello@magicnet.net
- * http://www.magicnet.net/~catello
- * CompuServe: 70401,3661
- */
-
-