borland vs. microsoft

[Gianni Mariani]

It isn't and you should know that.

Please indicate your reasoning. My experience is that g++ is on par or
better than VC++ in all respects I care about. What do you think makes
this untrue ?

Unless of course you're an open source vigilante whose sole measure of an
application is whether it's open source...

Performance of created executables is consistently poor when using GCC
compared to Borland or Microsoft compilers compiling the same code.

I have not experienced this problem. Can you give us an example ?

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Without VCL there's not much point in using BCB these days. I think
that was the idea behind CBX.

What is this BuilderX anyway. I downloaded the Enterprise Trial and
uninstalled it the next moment.

The reason is that it has not any RAD at all! Is it supposed that one
should build his Windows application today without a RAD?

Why did they remove the RAD?

Some of the Borland people and the teamB people have been indicating
that this time there will be some information released. There are rumors
that BCB will be bundled with Delphi and that CBX will be getting a new
release with a new compliant compiler and Dinkumware libraries.

Given what I know about C++ developments, what I would do if I was them
would be to release a version of BC++B with a RAD supporting .NET
without any support on VCL .NET, but which would also compile old VCL
code in native mode.


Why they need VCL .NET anyway? The only reason that I can think is in
different semantics between Delphi and .NET (like object destruction
sequence etc that you mentioned) which means that they have to
encapsulate everything with less efficiency as a result.


However if this is the case and they were smart, Delphi .NET should have
different semantics than Delphi, that is it should stick with .NET
semantics and this would also save them from the pain of creating VCL .NET.


A "what has changed" paragraph in the documentation mentioning the new
semantics would had done the job pretty well.

 

[Duane]

Duane Hebert wrote:

What is this BuilderX anyway. I downloaded the Enterprise Trial and
uninstalled it the next moment.

It's supposed to be their new direction with C++. You're supposed to
be able to use any compiler/toolset you wish. - at least in theory.
Borland was supposed to release a new "fully" compliant compiler.

The reason is that it has not any RAD at all! Is it supposed that one
should build his Windows application today without a RAD?

Why did they remove the RAD?

They initially planned on supplying wxWindows(wxWidget) for the GUI
but seem to have abandoned that idea. I have no clue if they intend
to release a new C++ product with no rad/gui tool. It doesn't make sense
to me but who knows what they are planning.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

They initially planned on supplying wxWindows(wxWidget) for the GUI
but seem to have abandoned that idea. I have no clue if they intend
to release a new C++ product with no rad/gui tool. It doesn't make sense
to me but who knows what they are planning.

However no one is going to buy that current release because it has a
major flaw, it lacks and RAD, and the wxWindows idea also does not make
sense under the view if .NET/WinFX.


Also since they already had a solution that supported VCL and had a RAD,
and they keep developing VCL, why should they switch to wxWindows?


Either there is someone there that really hates C++, or someone is crazy.

 

[Duane]

However no one is going to buy that current release because it has a
major flaw, it lacks and RAD, and the wxWindows idea also does not make
sense under the view if .NET/WinFX.

I think the sales for CBX would confirm that.

Also since they already had a solution that supported VCL and had a RAD,
and they keep developing VCL, why should they switch to wxWindows?

There are some pretty annoying bugs with BCB6. I don't see sticking with that
as an option if the bugs aren't fixed. Some of the bugs have to do with the IDE
so I think they are attempting to bundle it with Delphi to have one IDE to maintain.