drift@qut.edu.au (Glenn Wallace) (04/08/91)
Borland had a roadshow on here last Friday (yes even out in the bush!) A friend got some brochures of TP for Windows, as well as BC++. I notice that the IDE for TP (or at least the editor) is a Win App. BC++ does not appear to be. Is this the case? +-------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Glenn Wallace | Net: drift@qut.edu.au | | Drift Project | Fone: +61 7 837-7126 Fax: +61 7 221-0173| | Telecom Australia | Snail: 11th Flr 144 Edward St., | +-------------------+ Brisbane, Q4000 Australia | | | | Disclaimer - The opinions expressed must be my own, because | | Telecom is a statuatory authority and as such, | | is not capable of having opinions. | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> drift@qut.edu.au (Glenn Wallace) writes:
<Borland had a roadshow on here last Friday (yes even out in the bush!)
<A friend got some brochures of TP for Windows, as well as BC++.
<I notice that the IDE for TP (or at least the editor) is a Win App.
<BC++ does not appear to be.
<Is this the case?
Yes. In order to use TP-For-Windows, you *must* first fire up windows,
and then click on the TP icon. A real nuisance. For a DOS version, one has
to buy the separate TP6.0, which cannot build windows programs. I don't know
if TP-F-W is capable of making DOS applications like BC++. Anyone else know?
BC++ can run in windows, like most other DOS programs. It comes with a
protected mode version (BCX) as well as a "regular" version (BC). The linker
and assembler also have protected mode versions included. A much more rounded
package than TP.
--
MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario *** Personal views only ***
begin 644 NOTSHARE.COM ; Free MS-DOS utility - use instead of SHARE.EXE
MZQ.0@/P/=`J`_!9T!2[_+H``L/_/+HX&+`"T2<TAO@,!OX0`N1(`C,B.P/.DS
<^K@A-<TAB1Z``(P&@@"ZA`"X(27-(?NZE@#-)P#-5
``
endbgeer@javelin.sim.es.com (Bob Geer) (04/18/91)
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >Yes. In order to use TP-For-Windows, you *must* first fire up windows, >and then click on the TP icon. A real nuisance. There's a section in win.ini (maybe system.ini) where you can list programs you want Win3 to startup automatically & leave running in a window or leave icon-ized. A Win3 shareware app. called WinStart came across the net awhile ago that installs .exe's into that section using windows & mouse-clicking. (I'll be sending my registration fee RSN :-) This is all on my home machine so I can't post the code right now. The "_ini_.txt" files should cover the topic. Maybe someone can post a ftp source site for WinStart. -- <> Bob `Bear' Geer <> bgeer%javelin@bambam.dsd.es.com <> <> Alta-holic <> speaking only for myself, one of my many tricks <> <> Salt Lake City, <> "We must strive to be more than we are, Lal." <> <> Ootah <> -- Cmdr. Data, learning schmaltz <>
cms2839@isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) (04/18/91)
In article <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca> mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: > >Yes. In order to use TP-For-Windows, you *must* first fire up windows, >and then click on the TP icon. A real nuisance. For a DOS version, one has >to buy the separate TP6.0, which cannot build windows programs. I don't know >if TP-F-W is capable of making DOS applications like BC++. Anyone else know? > actually , no . you can write source in your favourite editor ( DOS or otherwise ) and use the command line complier . the .EXE must run under windows , though ... however , if you're that much against windows , you're probably not interested in TPwin . if it can make DOS apps , i haven't found it . notable , though , is that you can add two lines of code to any TP DOS app and have it run in a text window , happily ignoring the 640 KB barrier . -- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @ @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@ @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu @
demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu (Rob DeMillo) (04/25/91)
In article <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca> mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >In article <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> drift@qut.edu.au (Glenn Wallace) writes: ><Borland had a roadshow on here last Friday (yes even out in the bush!) ><A friend got some brochures of TP for Windows, as well as BC++. ><I notice that the IDE for TP (or at least the editor) is a Win App. ><BC++ does not appear to be. ><Is this the case? > >BC++ can run in windows, like most other DOS programs. It comes with a >protected mode version (BCX) as well as a "regular" version (BC). The linker >and assembler also have protected mode versions included. A much more rounded >package than TP. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that BC++ for Windows is a crock. It a great C++ compiler, but as a windows application builder, its pretty useless. Calling it a much more rounded package...I dunno. Keep in mind that none of my complaints would be valid if Borland didn't (a) tout BC++ as a windows applications builder, and (b) pull a Microsoftian move like raising the price a few hundred percent. If you have tried to do windows programming with it, you'll know what I mean...the compile cycle is slow, flipping back and forth between DOS full screen mode and Windows to use their IDE is obnoxious..the only thing that I really liked about it is the resource construction kit...and *they* didn't even write it. I dunno...save your money. Anyone know about Zortec C++ combined with C++ Views? - Rob DeMillo | Internet: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu Mass Inst of Tech/Lincoln Lab | Also: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu Weather Sensing Project-Group 43 | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) "I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!"
ebergman@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) (04/25/91)
Even though developing windows apps with BC++ 2.0 requires frequent ping-ponging from the dos "penalty" box to windows and back, it beats the hell out of the microsoft compiler. I'm 28 now, but don't have enough remaining lifespan to develop windows apps with the microsoft compiler! Terrell
oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (04/25/91)
In article <73404@brunix.UUCP> demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu (Rob DeMillo) writes: In article <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca> mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >In article <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> drift@qut.edu.au (Glenn Wallace) writes: ><Borland had a roadshow on here last Friday (yes even out in the bush!) ><A friend got some brochures of TP for Windows, as well as BC++. ><I notice that the IDE for TP (or at least the editor) is a Win App. ><BC++ does not appear to be. ><Is this the case? > >BC++ can run in windows, like most other DOS programs. It comes with a >protected mode version (BCX) as well as a "regular" version (BC). The linker >and assembler also have protected mode versions included. A much more rounded >package than TP. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that BC++ for Windows is a crock. It a great C++ compiler, but as a windows application builder, its pretty useless. Calling it a much more rounded package...I dunno. Keep in mind that none of my complaints would be valid if Borland didn't (a) tout BC++ as a windows applications builder, and (b) pull a Microsoftian move like raising the price a few hundred percent. If you have tried to do windows programming with it, you'll know what I mean...the compile cycle is slow, flipping back and forth between DOS full screen mode and Windows to use their IDE is obnoxious..the only thing that I really liked about it is the resource construction kit...and *they* didn't even write it. I dunno...save your money. Anyone know about Zortec C++ combined with C++ Views? - Rob DeMillo | Internet: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu Mass Inst of Tech/Lincoln Lab | Also: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu Weather Sensing Project-Group 43 | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) "I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!" Well, I don't agree. I don't have some mondo impressive system, but, I find the compile/link/run/debug cycle with BC++ to be quite good. First off, I don't run bcx under windows. I know it can be done, but with only a 12mhz 286/2.5meg it runs faster on it's own. I take about 30 sec to compile a 200 line application which uses windows and another 15 secs to link. It takes about 15 sec to get into windows and start the application. Add another 10 sec for TDW, and it isn't too bad. One of my thoughts on the TPW windows IDE vs the BC non-windows IDE is that without the debugging windows kernel I'm sure I making mistakes which if windows ran long enough would crash it in the early versions of my programs. I'm happier keeping the two separate so that a windows crash doesn't screw up the source I was working on. I know you can save, but that one time when you forget or something goes wrong.... bruce -- | Bruce O'Neel | internet : oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov| | Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel | | NASA/GSFC Bld 28/W281 |compuserve: 72737,1315 | | Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-4585 | Thats me in the corner, thats me in the spotlight, losin' my religion -- rem
wilcox@wucs1.wustl.edu (Don Wilcox) (04/25/91)
>I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that BC++ for Windows >is a crock. It a great C++ compiler, but as a windows application >builder, its pretty useless. Calling it a much more rounded >package...I dunno. > >Keep in mind that none of my complaints would be valid >if Borland didn't (a) tout BC++ as a windows applications builder, and >(b) pull a Microsoftian move like raising the price a few hundred percent. >If you have tried to do windows programming with it, you'll >know what I mean...the compile cycle is slow, flipping back and >forth between DOS full screen mode and Windows to use their IDE >is obnoxious..the only thing that I really liked about it >is the resource construction kit...and *they* didn't >even write it. > I disagree. I have spent the last 6 months working on Windows software. I started with MSC 6.00, and after growing old waiting for the compiler to process my code, I moved to the then new BC++. I can only complain that I cannot do my work in enhanced mode. Other than that, the productivity gains from BC++ have brought me back near schedule. A crock, this indicates to me that you haven't really investigated the product. Perhaps you secretly work at Microsoft :-)? > > > - Rob DeMillo | Internet: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu > Mass Inst of Tech/Lincoln Lab | Also: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu > Weather Sensing Project-Group 43 | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) >"I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!" Don Don Wilcox | "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Washington University in St. Louis | Lord is One." email: wilcox@cs.wustl.edu |
daveg@intruder.clearpoint.com (Dave Goldblatt) (04/25/91)
-=> On 24 Apr 91 21:33:28 GMT, demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu (Rob DeMillo) said:
RD> I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that BC++ for Windows
RD> is a crock. It a great C++ compiler, but as a windows application
RD> builder, its pretty useless. Calling it a much more rounded
RD> package...I dunno.
Say what? It works perfectly well as a Windows application builder.
RD> Keep in mind that none of my complaints would be valid
RD> if Borland didn't (a) tout BC++ as a windows applications builder, and
RD> (b) pull a Microsoftian move like raising the price a few hundred percent.
RD> If you have tried to do windows programming with it, you'll
RD> know what I mean...the compile cycle is slow, flipping back and
RD> forth between DOS full screen mode and Windows to use their IDE
RD> is obnoxious..the only thing that I really liked about it
RD> is the resource construction kit...and *they* didn't
RD> even write it.
Regarding (a) it is, and works fine. What makes you say otherwise?
Hell, Borland even licensed the WINDOWS.H file from the Microsoft SDK.
Regarding (b): Yup. They raised the price. And quite a number of people
have posted why. But there's no reason you have to pay anything
close to list. You can either upgrade from and Turbo product
cheaply, or upgrade from Microsoft to TC++ and then to BC++ (last
I checked, anyway).
Besides, starting and exiting Windows doesn't really bother me, since it's
quite possible to zorch Windows, and thus blow away your compiler. The
few seconds it takes isn't really an issue.
RD> I dunno...save your money. Anyone know
RD> about Zortec C++ combined with C++ Views?
All of the programmers I know using Zortech (some of whom have since
switched to BC++ :-) run it the sme way -- compile under DOS, and then
run Windows, for the reason given above. It's safer. Much more so
than compiling AND testing under Windows when you're doing
system-level programming.
-dg-
--
"Look, folks, you can't save everyone. | Dave Goldblatt [daveg@clearpoint.com]
Just try not to be living next to | Software Engineering (Subsystems)
them when they go off." | Clearpoint Research Corporation
- Dennis Miller | 35 Parkwood Dr., Hopkinton, MA 01748demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu (Rob DeMillo) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.135815.19679@cec1.wustl.edu> wilcox@wucs1.wustl.edu (Don Wilcox) writes: >>I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that BC++ for Windows >>is a crock. It a great C++ compiler, but as a windows application >>builder, its pretty useless. Calling it a much more rounded >>package...I dunno. >> >I disagree. I have spent the last 6 months working on Windows software. I >started with MSC 6.00, and after growing old waiting for the compiler to >process my code, I moved to the then new BC++. I can only complain that I >cannot do my work in enhanced mode. Other than that, the productivity gains >from BC++ have brought me back near schedule. A crock, this indicates to me >that you haven't really investigated the product. Perhaps you secretly work >at Microsoft :-)? >> Ick! What a terrible thing to say about me! Anyway...I've been doing Windows programming almost since Windows 3.0 came out. I am no fan about MSC (I use 5.1)...but I did purchase BC++ and look into using it...I was not pleased with the results...the compiler was slower than what I found with MSC5.1, and I actually *lost* more development time in having to switch back and forth between the Borland debugger symbols and the MS debugger symbols...why do I do that? Because the Borland debugger (athough was a *hell* of a lot easier for me to use than CV for Windows) lead me through several wild goose chases, while the CV for Windows dropped me off right at the errors doorstep. (In almost every case, the errors were memory related... Borland TD simply got lost...) In addition...Borland provides you with almost no tools. I frequently use the heapwalker and SPY in the SDK...also, I have gooten *very* dependent on the online Windows reference guide. I hardly ever crack open the reference books anymore. (Jeez...I could barely find anything in the reference guides...they printed the friggin' page numbers on the *inside* near the binding...you couldn't just flip to the right page.) Anyway Don...yes, I have investigated C++ by Borland...I have both BC++ and MSW+SDK...guess which one I like better? Reread my posting...my complaint wouldn't have a leg to stand on if borland didn't raise the price and call C++ 2.0 a complete Windows development kit...it is not. - Rob DeMillo | Internet: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu Mass Inst of Tech/Lincoln Lab | Also: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu Weather Sensing Project-Group 43 | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) "I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!"