• ### Announcements

#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# MSVC versus Borland

## Recommended Posts

SKSlayer    122
I am using MSVC++6 ... I was wondering why would borland be better or worse ? Tell me what you think of each of em

##### Share on other sites
LarryP    122
It depends on what you are building, what you are used to, and more. We need more information than what you posted.

For starters though, VC++ is used for games more than any other compiler. That is a fact. However, that surely does not mean that you have to use it. I use Borland Builder-5 a lot and I really like it. You can build about anything in Builder that you can build in VC++. Builder is more "Visual" than Visual C++ is, which makes the naming in my opinion wrong. Not much about VC++ is visual. Builder takes up a lot less hard drive space in comparison to the MSDN that VC++ requires for help. Whether you build component type applications or DirectX or OpenGL games, Builder does just fine. There are not nearly the amount of books for C++Builder as there are for Visual Studio, but any C or C++ code is valid.

Larry.

##### Share on other sites
SKSlayer    122
What do you mean by more visual ?

##### Share on other sites
tcs    122
VC++ is the industrie standard. And there are very good reasons why it is so...

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity

##### Share on other sites
Jallen    122
What he means by more visual is that Borland C++ Builder is more of a RAD (Rapid Application Development) tool like Delphi or Visual Basic. The form development is tightly integrated with the code. You can drop a button on the form and then write code for that button by simply double clicking on the button in design time. It uses event driven programming (a mouse move is an event), as apposed to Visual studio which uses window messages (more complicated but more powerfull).

Jason A.

---
I write code.

##### Share on other sites
tcs    122
That''s wrong. VC++ can do the plain win32 code but it is also the perfect tool for writing MFC code. And with MFC, you can do exactly what you described. ...You can even mix both, nop

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity

##### Share on other sites
Null and Void    1088
Unless I''m misinformed Borland C++ Builder 5 (some editions) also have support for MFC.

 Null and Void"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" --Homer Simpson

##### Share on other sites
SKSlayer    122
VC have classview, which I think sucks, And I like more to code my self by hand
If I want to make a class, I think it is better just to type
class myclass
{
};

I don''t understand what could mean visual in C++ (Except creating dialog boxes) (Well, I see what are MFC)

##### Share on other sites
LarryP    122
Why anyone would want to get caught up in MFC is beyond good reasoning. That is an MS mess! Yes Builder does have access to MFC. You can write Win32 apps just the same in Builder as you can in VC++ too and never use a form or control. I really like the idea that the next version of Builder will not be the mess that Visual Studio 7 is going to be. Boy I started a fight now I bet! Oohhh, do some of you feel your blood boiling over that one?

What I meant by Visual in my earlier post is RAD, Rapid Application Development. If you build apps that use the visual controls then you will see what Visual and RAD really mean. You can also create your own controls, and edit the existing controls. In VC++ working with resource files is kind of a pain, in Builder it is a breeze.

Just the facts.

##### Share on other sites
oglman    122
Borland has a lot more imaging libraries for DOS programming such as the Borland Graphics Interface (BGI) of the sound() function but MSVC is a lot more win32 oriented with more powerful developing tools and that stuff

##### Share on other sites
tcs    122
1.) Having DOS libaries is a waste of time
2.) Writing classes yourself when you have a class wizzard with GUID based inclusion guards is a waste of time
3.) Not using clean MFC code when doing GUI Appz is a waste of time
4.) Messing around with broken Borland glut headers is a waste of time
5.) Wasting time is plain STUPID

MSVC++ can do everything BC5 can do. It can just do it better, faster and even more...

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity

##### Share on other sites
SKSlayer    122
I do not agree

1) Dos libraries are very useful (look stdio.h)
2) At least you know what you do, Class Wizard sucks
3) MFC sucks, it is slow and un clear code
4) I dunno, I don''t use borland

##### Share on other sites
Jansic    251
I think you confuse the intended meaning of ''DOS Libraries'', with standard console IO. These days, DOS specific libraries are very little use to anyone...

As far as MFC goes, it''s just as light a wrapper as the STL, only it''s significantly less flexible. A doubly linked list implemented inline doesn''t get much slower just because somebody else wrote the code.

If you''re comparing the Borland OO system with M$''s MFC you''ll find that the Borland system does more work for you to make it easier to use, at the slight expense of efficiency and control. I used to love the Borland products, but nowadays I find it easier to produce a nice clean ANSI compatible app in MSVC. Jans. ----------------- Janucybermetaltvgothmogbunny #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites tcs 122 Usually only small wannabe coders confuse stdio.h with "DOS". This is win32 console. And all damn C/C++ compilers in the world have proper runtime libs. Oh, and the header file you mean is probably conio.h... Writing classes yourself is just sooo ultra stupid. You have to be a real dumbass to do so. Why writing inclusion guards ??? What''s the point ??? The IDE can do this for you. It''s to simple. Do you think you are more "cool" or "31337" when you do so ? Tell your employer that you are wasting his money by writing inclusion guards that any 12 year old kid / IDE could write ;-) so, MFC sucks ? OK. Try to do the following: Write a Win32 gui application with configurable docking toolbars. The application should have database access and printing with print preview. You should be able to insert OLE objects from other programs like Word and save them. The application should act as an OLE server and should be able to do full shell integration. The full app should be scripting enabled. OK. You try this with your damn whatever compiler, and I do it with MFC. I''m finished in 60 minutes, you need at least one moth. Guess who is more likely to get a job in some company ? MFC is not messy. Not more messy than any code you could write to do the same... Or can you accomplish such an application without MFC while still writing cleaner code ??? Probably in C or x86 asm ;-) Oh, but I forgot! You are soooooooooooo 31337, you don''t need MFC ! That''s for OOP lamers ! You don''t need C++, just C ! And class wizzard sucks, cuz you are so 31337 - you can write the same inclusion guard 100 times a day. Wow, I''m certain everyone is impressed ;-) Tim -------------------------- glvelocity.gamedev.net www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Jansic 251 Are you talking to me? quote: Usually only small wannabe coders confuse stdio.h with "DOS". Oh, and the header file you mean is probably conio.h... stdio.h/conio.h it''s all the same thing. I was trying to point out that it''s not the BGI, nor some obscure and outdated VESA library quote: so, MFC sucks ? I never said MFC sucks... I use MFC pretty much all day, and it''s ability as a win32 wrapper class system is second to none; it''s very powerful and suitably easy to use. Most peoples complaints with MFC come from the fact that it uses its own implementation of storage objects which also appear in the STL, and everybody seems to like portability over platform specific speed these days... quote: Oh, but I forgot! You are soooooooooooo 31337, I don''t do Warez Speek, so you obviously weren''t talking to me, oh well... Jans. ;P ----------------- Janucybermetaltvgothmogbunny #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1) Dockable toolbars take about 1 min in Builder. 2) Database takes less 3) Print preview takes maybe 10 minutes, mainly to lay the format out 4) OLE integration - easy. That would take maybe 30 minutes, as BCB has worse help then MSVC. 5) Shell integration is easy too (ok maybe not _real_ easy, but it wouldn''t take me a MONTH) 6) thats it and 7) Why do you think that just because someone thinks MFC sucks that therefore, they must be a hardcore c person who likes to retype everything and ''reinvent the wheel''? And not use OOP? Also, off topic, how long can you work in MSVC before it crashes? I can get maybe 1 or 2 hours before it crashes. ------------------------------ BCB DX Library - RAD C++ Game development for BCB #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Hmmmph. I type too slow. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Jansic 251 quote: Also, off topic, how long can you work in MSVC before it crashes? I can get maybe 1 or 2 hours before it crashes. MSVC runs fine for 8 hour chunks for me (i.e. a working day), to make it more stable you can a) Run NT. b) Get the update patches off M$.

Jans.

-----------------
Janucybermetaltvgothmogbunny

##### Share on other sites
fshana    122
While we''re on the topic, I just completed a tutorial on using the MFC with OpenGL. Check it out at http://www.cornflakezone.com

http://www.CornflakeZone.com
//-- Modelling and animation in every dimension --//

##### Share on other sites
oglman    122
When I said DOS libraries I meant graphics librarys like the bgi (i thought i said that) and I personally that its very nice for beginning graphics programming. And for me MSVC++ 6.0 works fine in win 98 with no patches

Edited by - oglman on October 15, 2000 1:34:06 PM

##### Share on other sites
quote:

a) Run NT.
b) Get the update patches off M\$.
[\quote]
Ah, well, I use MSVC at school, so I can''t do either of the two things.
(Not ANOTHER reboot )

------------------------------
BCB DX Library - RAD C++ Game development for BCB

##### Share on other sites
sinistrx    122
Time for my 2 cents, MFC programs are ugly, they stink of Microsoft! Make your programs fullscreen and add your own controls/ui it''s always the more aesthetic way to go. Ugh I hate grey menu bars......

##### Share on other sites
Wiz74    122
Hey All,

I am a Progress (4GL) Analyst Programmer, but in my spare time (which doesn''t consist of much, considering I am married and have a 5yr old son), I code in C++ for graphics purposes, as one day I would like to be involved in the Game Industry. Anyway I taught myself to program in C++ using Borland, which is a fantastic IDE. But recently have started using Visual C++, as this seems to be supported more. What I mean by this is, if you are still learning then probably best to stick to Visual C, as most tutorials and examples you find around the web are based on either Visual C or GNUCPP(free compiler, which is also very good).

But all are virtually the same (There''s one of those WAR starters again).

Anyway there is my two cents worth on the IDE discussion.

##### Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Heh I can''t resist putting my two cents on a big MFC sucks/r0x discussion.

I''ve used MFC but in the end I decided that it''s way to bulky to build any kind of efficient program. I use it when I want a quick little app to do some small task for me. In the end though I got pissed off at it and wrote my own window classes, mostly because it means I have total control over what happens and I KNOW exactly what is happening.

I never learned more than when I finally said MFC sucks, and decided to figure out how it works and cut out the fat.