home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.compuserve.com!newsmaster
- From: Philippe Verdy <100105.3120@compuserve.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Borland or MS???
- Date: 30 Mar 1996 01:36:59 GMT
- Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
- Message-ID: <4ji37r$eu0@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hd75-001.compuserve.com
-
- Ignatius <i-wong@wiu.edu> s'Θcrit :
- > Caius Martius wrote:
- > >
- > > GL493@gre.ac.uk wrote:
- > > >
- > > > >>If you want to use MFC's, the only way is Visual C++ (or Symantec C++!).
- > > > >
- > > > >This is about to change with BC++5.0.
- > > > >
- > > >
- > > > All I can say is Hoorah!! - Yep I'm a Borland Fan!
- > >
- > > The Borland C++ Development Suite definitely supports MFC...
- > >
- > > -Caius
- >
- > I've tried to compile and run some some sample MFC programs and
- > BC5 issued so many warnings about MFC. On running them, the CodeGuard
- > consistently reported memory leaks on MFC modules. This leads me
- > to wonder if I should continue to use MFC or simply switch altogether
- > to OWL. Any suggestion?
- >
- Even MicroSoft knows of these memory leaks. In fact there are
- many problems with their compiler, which cannot handle very
- well the construction and destruction processes of static members
- of classes, so there are ambiguous situations in which the wrong
- choice is made. So their compiled MFC libraries fail to unload
- correctly if used from a DLL. Borland gives you some known
- patches to the bugs in the source of MFC classes.
- Even in the Visual C++ environment, you have to disable the
- memory leaks report which produces a long core dump in its
- Output window. I have used it since some months because it
- was the only environment I had for Win95. Now I expect to
- receive BC++ 5.0 in one or two couples or days.
-
- > I've always enjoyed using Borland quality products, both BC and DP.
- >
- > # ig
-
-