home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.shentel.net!usenet
- From: Jeff French <jfrench@shentel.net>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer
- Subject: Re: Borland C++ versus Visual C++
- Date: 15 Apr 1996 04:19:23 GMT
- Organization: Shentel
- Message-ID: <4ksiob$537@head.globalcom.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: eb3ppp9.shentel.net
-
- Brian Ebarb <ebarb@airmail.net> writes:
- > Walther Schoonenberg wrote:
- > >
- > > HELP!!!
- > >
- > > I've used Borland C++ for Windows 3.1, but now I have upgraded to
- > > Windows95. I have to decide if I upgrade to the newest version of
- > > Borland C++ or buy Visual C++ for Windows 95.
- > >
- > > Two questions:
- > > 1. I have programmed applications with Borland's ObjectWindows library.
- > > Is it possible to compile these applications in Visual C++ ?
- > > 2. Is it possible to use the standard Microsoft objectclass library
- > > in Borland's C++ ? Because I want to do that too !
- >
-
-
- You've already had your 2 questions answered, so I won't bore you
- with those details...again.
-
- However I will give you an 'Opinion' (I could call it professional, but
- it seems you've already had one of those types of opinions) and some other
- things to consider.
-
- Things to Consider
- ==================
- 1. How much OWL code do you have that needs to be moved over to
- the newly purchased development environment? If there's a
- substantial amount, your question may be irrelevant and you
- 'should' already know the answer.
-
- 2. How familiar/confortable are you with your current (BORLAND)
- compiler and tools? Do you even care to learn a new
- environment?
-
- 3. Are you (and you customer/client base) satisfied with the
- output (Generally Executables/DLLs) that you current (BORLAND)
- environment produces?
-
- 4. Do you care about portability? If so to what environment?
-
- 5. Do you care about C++ Standards?
- (I get the feeling that Borland is doing everything in their
- powers to follow the C++ standards, where Microsoft is doing
- everything the can to create new 'non-standard' standards).
-
-
- Opinion(s)
- ==========
-
- I use BOTH of these compilers so I will give some opinions regarding
- each.
-
- BORLAND
- -------
-
- I have found the transition from Borland 4.5 to 5.0 to be relatively
- painless although there are certainly some differences and additional
- capabilities that you will need to learn (of course if there weren't
- any differences there's really no sense in upgrading). Moving from
- 16-bit to 32-bit (especially with OWL) is a simple change in the
- Target Expert and a rebuild (this can certainly become more difficult
- depending on the amount of Windows API Specific code you use rather
- than OWL specific code).
-
- If you do decide to upgrade Borland, I would suggest the Suite.
- CodeGuard can be helpful in easing the search from those nasty
- application bugs (however I also believe that NOTHING on the
- market today can beat Bounds Checker by NU-MEGA for this type
- of debugging tool...again just an opinion).
-
-
- MICROSOFT
- ---------
-
- On the other hand the transition from Microsoft 1.5x (16bit) to 2.x/4.0
- (32bit) is quite drastic with entirely different environments (but since
- it sounds like you have no Microsoft 16-bit code, this isn't an issue).
- So let me say that the Visual C+ 4.0 environment is really quite
- acceptable and worthy of a look.
-
-
- Some other thoughts
- ===================
-
- I truly prefer OWL to the MFC Windows API encapsulation, I find that
- OWL is more intuitive and (even looking at the library source code) is
- much easier to undertand when moving from a Windows API development
- environment. However I will say that MFC is making large leaps and
- strides in this area and has improved quite a bit from earlier versions.
-
- I also prefer Borland Resource Editors (both compilers have their
- Resource Editors built into their individual IDE environments) and again
- this is a matter of preference and Microsoft has again made large strides
- in improving these tools.
-
- To base your decision on what technical books are available may be
- appropriate if you are just starting to program in Windows and will need
- the generalized support that they can provide, however it is certainly
- not (in my opinion) a means to an end in selecting a compiler (or
- anything else) for day-to-day development. Frankly when I'm looking
- for a book on Windows Development I would prefer that they not be
- Vendor Specific, (and if they are vendor specific, I would certainly
- NOT hesitate to use what I learned on one vendors products with another
- vendors). I also prefer that the book cover (in detail) the topic or
- topics that I am interested in.
-
- IN CONCLUSION
- =============
-
- I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have to weigh the pros and
- cons with your situation, both products are acceptable development
- environments, both products have their strong points, both products have
- their nasty little bugs that will catch you at the most inopportune times.
-
- I personally do (and have to) use each one of these products on a daily
- basis. On the otherhand I prefer this, I feel I am not 'putting my eggs
- all in one basket' and will have a much better chance at acquiring and
- surviving at my next Windows Programming job.
-
- Hope this helps (it should at least give you a bit more to think about).
-
-
- By the way - Professionals use whatever tools are most appropriate for a
- particular project and/or situation (and definitely do not
- limit themselves to a product or vendor).
-
- Sorry, I guess the last response hit a couple sour notes with me.
-
-
- Jeff French.
-
-