kevin@loki.une.oz.au (Kevin Pollard) (06/24/91)
Can someone tell me if it's worth upgading from TurboC 2.0 to Borland C++ I have written, and am continually upgrading, large C programs - integrated business packages. In the next six months I do NOT intend to modify the packages to work under windows, nor do I intend to learn C++ But, from what I can gather, it may be worth upgrading to BC++ to take advantage of the improvements made to non-objective C, and the improved development environment. Am I correct? and if so what are the improvements to the development environment - given that I will not be using C++ for a while, just C Or is there anything else better than BC++? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Aard-vark a very difficult word which you don't need to know.' ---------------------------------------- The Oxfod Simplified Dictionary.
Marc_Van-Woerkom@ac.maus.de (Marc Van-Woerkom) (06/27/91)
Hello Kevin: You asked about benefits from BC++ for the true C-programmer. * BC++ includes protected-mode versions of the IDE- and command-line compilers plus of TLINK. I noticed dramatic speed improvements on my system, when I compiled the Windows examples with these X-versions. * You can use precompiled header-files, but 'til now I don't use them for they ask rather strict conditions. (No C/C++ mixing, only PASCAL calls, default unsigned char etc.) * BC++ has an built-in assembler. * IDE: "Undo" and "Redo" functions dealing with multi-command sequences. * A new chapter about moving from MSC to BC++. Bye, Marc Besides: KP>'Aard-vark a very difficult word which you don't need to know.' Hey, this has truly dutch origins: Aarde = earth varken = pig One of my favorite words!