📄 wpw_tool_compilers_95.html
字号:
<HTML>
<HR><A NAME=TOOL_COMPILERS_WAR>
Return to <a href="wpw_tool_index.html#TOC">Table of Contents for this chapter</a><br>
<H4>Subject: C++ compilers: Borland vs Microsoft Visual vs Watcom</H4><PRE>
I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
Thanks in advance - Glenn
--
Glenn S. Iwerks | Grad Student & RA |
Dept. of Computer Science | iwerks@cs.umd.edu | %) morning face
University of Maryland, College Park |
<HR>
In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu
(Glenn S Iwerks) wrote:
> I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
> Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
> are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support. If
you have any problems or questions, or even find a bug in the compiler,
Borland will only help you if you pay them $2 / minute. In many cases,
you *cannot* find the answer in the documentation, so you may lose a lot
of valuable time trying to figure things out yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
russgold@netaxs.com (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russgold@aol.com | bargains between selfish interests."
<HR>
Russell Gold (russgold@netaxs.com) wrote:
: In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu
: (Glenn S Iwerks) wrote:
: > I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
: > Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
: > are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
: I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support. If
: you have any problems or questions, or even find a bug in the compiler,
: Borland will only help you if you pay them $2 / minute. In many cases,
: you *cannot* find the answer in the documentation, so you may lose a lot
: of valuable time trying to figure things out yourself.
You are totally wrong! There are many ways to get a free Borland product
support throught out the Internet. There is also no shortage in Borland's
documentation, you just need to know where to look for. I don't have any
troubles in finding the answer in their documentation. In fact, there
are more Borland C++ books than Visual C++ books out there.
Morgan K. Lee
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Email: mklst4+@pitt.edu
<HR>
In article <3s5e32$7ns@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mklst4+@pitt.edu (Morgan
K Lee) wrote:
> Russell Gold (russgold@netaxs.com) wrote:
> : In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu
> : (Glenn S Iwerks) wrote:
>
> : > I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
> : > Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
> : > are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
>
> : I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support. If
> : you have any problems or questions, or even find a bug in the compiler,
> : Borland will only help you if you pay them $2 / minute. In many cases,
> : you *cannot* find the answer in the documentation, so you may lose a lot
> : of valuable time trying to figure things out yourself.
>
> You are totally wrong! There are many ways to get a free Borland product
> support throught out the Internet. There is also no shortage in Borland's
> documentation, you just need to know where to look for. I don't have any
> troubles in finding the answer in their documentation. In fact, there
> are more Borland C++ books than Visual C++ books out there.
OK, please correct me, then. I do not consider using Compu$erve to be
"free support" (although it is less than $2/minute), nor is the response
always timely. If you can suggest other methods of getting "free support"
*from Borland* I would like to try them.
I am quite aware that newsgroups such as this one allow others to help
with problems, but the response is not always guaranteed. I am also aware
that many 3rd-party authors are filling in some of the gaps in Borland's
documentation. I just don't beleive that Borland should cast its own
customers adrift the way they do and rely on 3rd-parties.
When I say "support" I mean the ability to contact the supplier of a
product with problem and get rapid response. I do not expect to have to
pay extra for the privilege of pointing out mistakes in the product for
which I have already paid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
russgold@netaxs.com (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russgold@aol.com | bargains between selfish interests."
<HR>
In article <3r2k3v$7v6@lucy.infi.net>
Ryan Groth <snakec@infi.net> wrote:
> From my impression of compilers under Win95:
> Borland C++, mostly a compiler to learn on. Very little serious
> development occurs with it. Home/School Use mostly. Also has a
> good DOS development libs.
Nope. My understanding is that Quattro Pro for Windows was written
in Parallel with the BC++ 4.0 compiler. I think I read somewhere that
Borland used the compiler as they built it. How much more serious
do you want to get? I'm sure lots of really good stuff is Borland
(look for BWCC.DLL on you computer, it is an obvious footprint
though not a necessary one)
> Microsoft C++, used by professional programmers who need the latest
> API calls and documentation. Fairly good compiler overall.
Ack! MSVC++ ought to be C with object oriented extensions. They
lag behind when it comes to complying with C++ standards. (Where's
the C++ exception handling) MFC is gross!! If you look at how
OWL overloads member functions and supplies default parameters to
make the programmer's life easier, you'd begin to wonder. I think
MFC is an indication that MS compiler development doesn't *understand* C++.
> Symantec C++, Excellent for workgroups. Automatic reversion #'s,
> commenting etc.. Extremely inexpensive compiler also a +.
I'd expect that your making this comment based on the built in support
for version control and the new NetBuild feature that allows distributed
compilation. It is nice. I'd pick it over MSVC. Interface is next
generation, drag and drop features are very "SEXY" along with the debugger
and graphical browser. but... early versions were plagued with bugs and
the newer version has a hefty minimum memory requirement.
It comes with MFC as the framework, tis a shame.
> So for DOS development Borland is Best? Do all compilers have support
> for VFAT or DOS/95? Are any "more portable" to OS/2 then thier competetors
> and What is the best for serious development by an individual.
Ack!!!! Watcom is IMHO the best for developing for DOS. Watcom is
multiplatform ( Win16, Win32, Novell NLM's, OS/2, QNX, dos 16, dos 32/w ext).
I'd expect that Watcom could compile OWL if it wasn't for the glaring omission
of RTTI. Hey, I remember reading somewhere that IBM used a Watcom compiler
to compile the Win-OS/2 stuff in OS/2 v2.1. I think the guy said it was
something like a no brainer to speed the works up.
And you forgot the rest. Metaware and, is it, High C++. I get the feeling
that people that develop independent of the Microsoft regime prefer
professional tools like Metaware and Watcom, favoring good code generation,
optimization and flexibility. If you want to learn programming for the
Windows platform, go elsewhere. (I learned with Borland and am using Watcom
for production code, nice small tight executables).
Brent Eagles
<HR>
russgold@netaxs.com (Russell Gold) wrote:
>I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support.
Well, if you don't like the support now, you really won't like it when
Novell aquires Borland. This is expected to happen very soon now. The
deal has been in the works and the only sticking point seems to be
that Kahn wants a seat on the Novell board. If you are interested
in Win32 support, notice how fast Novell responds to NT now (not very
fast, they haven't even released their NT requestor yet). I don't
expect that to change when they aquire Borland.
<HR>
In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu (Glenn S Iwerks) writes:
|> I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
|> Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
|> are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
If you're looking for a Windows development environment only, then I'd
probably go with Microsoft. Watcom C++'s strengths seem to be its extensive
cross-platform capabilities and decent code optimization, not Windows
development. While Watcom *does* fully support Windows development (including
MFC, NT, and Win32s), integration between the various Windows development
tools and the IDE don't seem to be as good as Microsoft.
Watcom includes a royalty-free 32-bit DOS extender, if that's an issue for
you.
If you tend to do both Windows and DOS (or OS/2) programming, you might
want to do what I did -- get Microsoft *and* Watcom.
I've also heard some people say that they like to use Watcom to compile
the release version of their programs, even if they don't use it through
the entire development cycle. Apparently, Watcom generates better code.
I'm not familiar with the current crop of Borland products, so I can't really
comment on them. I did use the Borland 3.1 compiler extensively a few years
ago, though: The 3.1 product had some really excellent features for its
time (when it worked).
-- Mike Uchima
-- uchima@fnal.fnal.gov
<HR>
In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu
says...
>
>I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
>Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
>are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
>
>Thanks in advance - Glenn
There was a review of compilers etc in PC Magazine (US Edition) of
11 April '95. It included the three you mention plus more, and talked
about 16/32-bit issues too.
For what it's worth: I use VC++ 1.5 for 16-bit and VC++ 2.0 for 32-bit.
I absolutely *detest* the fact that they're two distinct environments
(try using two different debuggers, booting DOS-to-NT to switch, etc).
But, since it works, I'm unlikely to swap unless Microsoft makes a
design decision which prevents me from getting my work done.
More points like the one above might do it.
Hope this helps,
- Gavin.
<HR>
In article <DAHn5H.vI@emr1.emr.ca>, jagrant@emr1.emr.ca (John Grant) writes:
|> In article <russgold-1906951945010001@downtown1-33.slip.netaxs.com> russgold@netaxs.com (Russell Gold) writes:
|> >I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support. If
|> >you have any problems or questions, or even find a bug in the compiler,
|> >Borland will only help you if you pay them $2 / minute. In many cases,
|> >you *cannot* find the answer in the documentation, so you may lose a lot
|> >of valuable time trying to figure things out yourself.
|>
|> Just for comparision, what does support cost for Microsoft,
|> Symantec & Watcom?
One data point: A while back, I was having a lot of problems with the
Watcom environment (version 10.0). I faxed them a list of the problems I
was having, and a few days later, a CD with the 10.0a maintenance
release (plus a floppy with the 10.0b patches) showed up in my mailbox.
The maintenance release seems to have taken care of most of the problems;
the remaining ones are relatively minor...
I'd say this is pretty good service, and all it cost me was the phone
call (to send the FAX).
On the other hand, their turnaround on e-mail requests is terrible, for
some reason. Go figure.
-- Mike Uchima
-- uchima@fnal.fnal.gov
<HR>
In article 1906951945010001@downtown1-33.slip.netaxs.com, russgold@netaxs.com (Russell Gold) writes:
> In article <3s4iur$55f@midgard.umiacs.umd.edu>, iwerks@umiacs.umd.edu
> (Glenn S Iwerks) wrote:
>
> > I am looking for a C++ compiler for windows 3.1 (maybe windows-nt).
> > Does anyone have any opinions on what the positive or negative points
> > are for Borland, Microsoft Visual, and Watcom?
>
> I can mention one *very* big negative for Borland - lack of support. If
> you have any problems or questions, or even find a bug in the compiler,
> Borland will only help you if you pay them $2 / minute. In many cases,
> you *cannot* find the answer in the documentation, so you may lose a lot
> of valuable time trying to figure things out yourself.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
> russgold@netaxs.com (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
> russgold@aol.com | bargains between selfish interests."
Borland has a better class library than Visual C++ but it's development
environment is far worse, especially if you want to build a 32 bit
application. In this case you cannot use the integrated debugger (which is
buggy anyway) or the class browser functions. You have to resort to this
nasty turbo debugger which is pathetic, old fashioned and completely
unconnected to your development session.
I have ended up sticking with Visual C++ as it is so helpful, stable and
friendly despite the fact that the MFC sometimes offends my OO sensibilities.
It's a shame, given half a chance I would prefer to use Borland just because
it has the potential to compete with Microsoft, a rare feat these days.
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dinn | The generation of random
Hydrographic Sciences Australia | numbers is too important
| to be left to chance.
email: kevin@hsa.com.au |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
</PRE>
<HR><A NAME=TOOL_COMPILERS_WW_II>
Return to <a href="wpw_tool_index.html#TOC">Table of Contents for this chapter</a><br>
<H4>Subject: NO_SUB</H4><PRE>
I'll admit it, I'm new to this C++ on Windows lark. I'm not new
to programming however but I have found the process of getting up
to speed developing in a Windows environment a massive struggle.
I am posting this to describe what I have encountered and invite
your comments on where I have gone wrong.
I have been evaluating Borland 4.5, Visual 2.0 and Symantec 7.0 C++
IDE's.
MFC
---
Basically I have come to the conclusion that MFC is surprisingly
badly written. It is simply the C API translated into C++ syntax.
It doesn't use any of the benefits of C++ or object oriented
design at all. I am amazed that something as big as Microsoft
couldn't employ a couple of people who knew that there was such
things as constructors with parameters for instance.
I looked forward to programming in C++ instead of C to finally
leave behind all the memory allocation/deallocation/reuse bugs
but I found that I was finding sample code for MFC with mallocs
in it as if that was how it was supposed to be done.
On this basis I rejected both Visual and Symantec C++ as they
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -