BC5.5/visual c++
Hey, I''m some what of a newbie. I have the free version of borlands c++ compiler. I wanted to know what opinions ya''ll had on getting visual c++. Is it worth the extra 100$? O, I''m also using directx, if that makes any difference. I''ve heard before that Borland doesn''t support it to well.
Hey,
I don''t know which is better, Borland or Microsoft, but I use Borland myself and will continue to do so.
Anyway, using DirectX with a Borland compiler is not a problem. The only thing you have to do is convert the directx .dll files to .lib files using borlands implib tool. This is because microsoft doesn''t include lib files for borland compilers in their directx sdk(like SGI does with opengl ).
In order to use directx under borland just link the libs and include the headers like you would do in Visual C++.
- Jesper
I don''t know which is better, Borland or Microsoft, but I use Borland myself and will continue to do so.
Anyway, using DirectX with a Borland compiler is not a problem. The only thing you have to do is convert the directx .dll files to .lib files using borlands implib tool. This is because microsoft doesn''t include lib files for borland compilers in their directx sdk(like SGI does with opengl ).
In order to use directx under borland just link the libs and include the headers like you would do in Visual C++.
- Jesper
The visual application development part of Visual C++ is pretty lame compared to Borland''s implementation.
Also, the Borland C++ compiler is a lot faster than the Visual C++ compiler because it uses precompiled libs and does partial compilation (It''s still nowhere near the speed of the Delphi compiler).
DirectX is no problem, in fact, BC++ Builder comes with a bunch of DirectX demos.
Also, the Borland C++ compiler is a lot faster than the Visual C++ compiler because it uses precompiled libs and does partial compilation (It''s still nowhere near the speed of the Delphi compiler).
DirectX is no problem, in fact, BC++ Builder comes with a bunch of DirectX demos.
Uhm, the only reason why you probably should use Visual C++ is because it is the industry standard... Most commercial game developers use it.
Well I''m usin the freeware Borland, is that compiler faster than Visual C++? That would be wierd.
I think that all BC++ versions (the free one, as well as the professional and enterprise version) use the same compiler.
The main difference between the versions is the editor, the VCL, and the license (You may not publish programs written with the free version).
I once had a free version of BC++ Builder that came with a book and it created EXE files that wouldn''t run outside BC++. Make sure this isn''t the case with your version...
The main difference between the versions is the editor, the VCL, and the license (You may not publish programs written with the free version).
I once had a free version of BC++ Builder that came with a book and it created EXE files that wouldn''t run outside BC++. Make sure this isn''t the case with your version...
Did your program say it couldn''t find some dll files? If that was the case then perhaps linking the program static instead of dynamic might help. This way the functions the program tried to use(from the dll files) is made part of the exe file. This of course adds a bit to the size of the exe file.
Just wanted to mention that.
- Jesper
Just wanted to mention that.
- Jesper
I can''t be 100% sure but some reason my mind claims I heard or read somewhere that free version of BC compiler do NOT optimize speed of code as good as enterprise etc...
Only reason why one might want to use VC++ might be that little "hassle" if you want use DirectX, but that''s nothing to worry about I guess
Only reason why one might want to use VC++ might be that little "hassle" if you want use DirectX, but that''s nothing to worry about I guess
All rumours and conjecture until someone proves one way or the other by compiling the same application in both the free compiler and Enterprise version and compares the two.
Harry, that version you had was limited in that the applications could not be run outside of the IDE for a specific reason. It was intentional. That limitation will be mentioned in the book and/or in the software license agreement.
DirectX can be used just fine in BCC. So that point is moot.
Yes, Visual C++ is the defacto standard in the game development industry. I use it myself for my job as a games programmer. This is simply because every API out there supports Visual C++. Why does every API support Visual C++? Because Microsoft can get the support, either through assistance to the API developers or other means. Smaller companies such as Borland simply cannot afford to match Microsoft. I''m not arguing that you should switch to Visual C++. This is just an opinion of why Visual C++ is the current defacto standard.
Harry, that version you had was limited in that the applications could not be run outside of the IDE for a specific reason. It was intentional. That limitation will be mentioned in the book and/or in the software license agreement.
DirectX can be used just fine in BCC. So that point is moot.
Yes, Visual C++ is the defacto standard in the game development industry. I use it myself for my job as a games programmer. This is simply because every API out there supports Visual C++. Why does every API support Visual C++? Because Microsoft can get the support, either through assistance to the API developers or other means. Smaller companies such as Borland simply cannot afford to match Microsoft. I''m not arguing that you should switch to Visual C++. This is just an opinion of why Visual C++ is the current defacto standard.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement