frank@odetics.com (Frank Merrow) (04/24/91)
Hi, We will soon be converting to a MS-Windows based environment. I actually got my boss to agree to send a few of our programmers to classes. I am sure I could call Microsoft and they would have something, but I wanted to ask you netters about the "best" classes. I assume third parties must offer better classes at cheaper prices some place. I would like to keep travel expenses to a minimum, so the closer to Disneyland (Anaheim Calif) the better. As a side question, I have heard rave reviews about the new Borland C++ compiler. You supposedly don't need a SDK and you can get a window up and open much easier (source code wise). I would be interested in comments about the Borland package, particularly from programmers who have used BOTH MS and Borland. In particular, is Borland at all compatable with the MS SDK? (i.e. are the calls at all the same or totally different?) Can a windows program written in MS easily be ported to Borland and/or visa versa? Thanks Frank frank@odetics.com or uunet!odetics!frank
ebergman@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) (04/25/91)
By $0.02 worth: The source code for a Windows application written in BC++ 2.0 should be virtually identical to the same application written in MS C (unless you elect to use some of the non-standard turboisms (which are clearly marked as such in the manuals)). In particular, the Windows routines are called the same way (in fact both use the same windows.h file (which has all the function prototypes). The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 is speed. I've used MS C 5.1 and it's simply too slow. Borland's compiler is much faster. Terrell
mguyott@primerd.prime.com (04/27/91)
WARNING: Many opinions follow!
I have used both Borland and Zortech C++. I prefer Zortech C++ for the
following reasons:
1. While Borland provides the same calls to the SDK routines as the SDK,
they have managed to introduce some bugs in their thin interface. For
example the OpenFile() call works perfectly when called from the
Windows SDK. It does not work at all when called from Borland C++.
2. While using Borland C++ to build a commercial application we were
constantly encountering internal compiler limits. When we called
Borland they told us to make our application "simpler". We have
had no such problems with Zortech C++.
3. Borland uses there own proprietary debugging format. This means you
can not take advantage of hardware debuggers such as Periscope and
hardware/software debuggers such as Magic CVW and SoftIce. Zortech
uses, and claims to continue to use, the Codeview debugging format.
4. Zortech will provide you with the source for ANYTHING that is in ANY
of their libraries. Some of this source costs a little extra but we
are talking hundreds not thousands of dollars.
5. The example/paridigm used by Zortech to develop object oriented MS
Windows applications is, in my humble opinion, far superior to the
paridigm used by Borland. Of course you can use the Zortech paradigm
with the Borland compiler if you so desire.
Problems with Zortech C++:
1. Zortech C++ currently has a bug in their int86() and int86x() routines
which cause problems when you try to access a device driver. This is
particularly troublesome if you are developing a network application.
Zortech is supposed to have a fix for this and it should be in their next
release which will hopefully be soon.
2. There is no easy way to rename a code segment so that you can combine
several compilation modules into one code segment. This is a nice thing
to be able to do in Windows because it allows you to optimize the
performance of your application. They do provide a utility that can be
run on the .obj files to make these changes but it is not as easy to use
as the -z compiler flag in Borland C++ or the /NT flag in MSC.
WARNING: These are my own personal opinions. Please do not confuse any of
the above with fact unless you have verified it yourself.
I have no affiliation with either Borland or Zortech. I like Zortech
because it provides more open environment that allows your application to
work with many other third pary tools. I also like their approach to MS
Windows and object oriented programming. I hope this helps.
Marc
----
Two of the worst things we teach our children are that a knowledge of science
is nice but not necessary, and a knowledge of sex is necessary but not nice.
Marc Guyott Constellation Software, Inc. (508) 620-2800
Framingham, Mass. 01701 USA Ext. 3135
mguyott@primerd.prime.com ...!{uunet, decwrl}!primerd.prime.com!mguyottjohnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr25.134339.28411@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ebergman@isis.UUCP (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes: >In particular, the Windows routines are called the same way (in fact >both use the same windows.h file (which has all the function prototypes). > >The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 is speed. I've used MS C 5.1 and it's >simply too slow. Borland's compiler is much faster. Another perspective on the same thing... The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 over MSC X.X is that it is a C++ compiler capable of generating Windows programs. The chief advantage of BC++ over Zortech is its speed and overall package quality (more bang for the buck due to WRT and TDW, etc.). I believe that if you aren't at least starting to use C++ to reduce the complexity of your Windows application programming then you are missing out on most of the power of this system. John Munsch "Gentlemen, STOP FIGHTING. This is the War Room." - Dr. Strangelove
ebergman@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) (04/30/91)
What problem did you have calling OpenFile from BC++ 2.0? Care to post a code fragment? Did you call it in? What did they say? Terrell BTW I just checked my Windows application - I'm using OpenFile to make sure a file exists (but not to actually open it). Seems to work OK (can't remember if I tried it with a deliberatly invalid filename). Anyway, knowing what bugs exist in a compiler is extremely valuable - if you encounter a bug - please describe it in detail - because Perspiring Minds Want to Know! Terrell
whitney@sunnyland.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) (05/03/91)
In article <149000023@primerd>, mguyott@primerd.prime.com writes:
)
) WARNING: Many opinions follow!
)
) 1. While Borland provides the same calls to the SDK routines as the SDK,
) they have managed to introduce some bugs in their thin interface. For
) example the OpenFile() call works perfectly when called from the
) Windows SDK. It does not work at all when called from Borland C++.
This statement cannot be an opinion. The two possibilities are:
1.) The OpenFile function is actually bugged
2.) You are not using is correctly
It would be more helpful if you could narrow this down one choice before posting.Alex_Cleynhens@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org (Alex Cleynhens) (05/10/91)
In a message of <29 Apr 1991 18:40>, John Munsch (2:292/0) writes: >JM: The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 over MSC X.X is that it is a C++ >JM: compiler Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is a C only. alex
Thomas_Neumann@p4.f5800.n241.z2.fidonet.org (Thomas Neumann) (05/11/91)
> Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is > a C only. Really...? If you own a copy of BC++ yourself take a look at the WHELLO.CPP program in the EXAMPLES directory. Pretty much C++ there, and pretty much a windows app. So what ? bye, Thomas
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/14/91)
From article <2191113696@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org>, by Alex_Cleynhens@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org (Alex Cleynhens): > In a message of <29 Apr 1991 18:40>, John Munsch (2:292/0) writes: > > >JM: The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 over MSC X.X is that it is a C++ > >JM: compiler > > Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is a C only. Except for the fact that for Windows, its a C++ compiler. This includes exporting C++ classes in DLL's and whatever you wanna do in Windows. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (05/14/91)
In article <2191113696@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org> Alex_Cleynhens@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org (Alex Cleynhens) writes: In a message of <29 Apr 1991 18:40>, John Munsch (2:292/0) writes: >JM: The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 over MSC X.X is that it is a C++ >JM: compiler Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is a C only. alex Boy, that's a suprise. Borland put out a magazine called Borland Language Express with C++ classes for windows in it. They worked. Some of the examples which came with BC were in C++ and they worked, and I've been writing c++ code for windows for 2 months and it seems to work. On the other hand, all the Microsoft documentation does assume you're using C... bruce -- Bruce O'Neel oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664
davel@booboo.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David Lord) (05/14/91)
In article <2191113696@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org> Alex_Cleynhens%f500.n292.z2@hippo.dfv.rwth-aachen.de (Alex Cleynhens) writes: >In a message of <29 Apr 1991 18:40>, John Munsch (2:292/0) writes: > > >JM: The chief advantage of BC++ 2.0 over MSC X.X is that it is a C++ > >JM: compiler > >Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is a C only. > >alex Expect a lot of flames over that statement. Having Written C++ Windows programs using Borland C++ I can guarantee that you are mistaken.
Alex_Cleynhens@f500.n292.z2.fidonet.org (Alex Cleynhens) (05/16/91)
In a message of <10 May 1991 22:35>, Thomas Neumann (2:241/5800.4) writes: >TN: > Sorry: BC is a C++ compiler, but for Windows prg's is >TN: > a C only. >TN: Really...? If you own a copy of BC++ yourself take a look at the >TN: WHELLO.CPP program in the EXAMPLES directory. Pretty much C++ Sorry guys, I wanted to say: Borland doesn't suplly a c++ class library for Windows. alex PS: thanks for the netmails. They all get here