Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.programmer:3723 comp.windows.ms.programmer:1140 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!cadsi From: cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: Borland C++ 2.0, report #2 Message-ID: <1991Mar4.150257.422@ccad.uiowa.edu> Date: 4 Mar 91 15:02:57 GMT References: Distribution: na Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Lines: 20 From article , by oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ): > So, a second look at BC++ 2.0 a few days after I got it. I got it to > do windows programming. Other attributes aren't useful to me now. > I agree. Time for a second look, particurlarly since i pseudo-flamed Borland in my first look. Second look looks better. I have converted a rather large program from C to C++ (I wrote C a lot like C++ in order to facilitate this early in the design). Borland C++ has done an excellent job. I have to admit once again that I am NOT it awe at this package. Its just another tool, probably not worth all the articles its getting. Its a good package, but I still think the SDK is required, that is unless someone will tell me how to use the Borland Help Compiler. I haven't found one. On the speed of compiles?? I think I was wrong earlier, its still screams. It was the windows.h file that slowed things. I should have expected MickeySoft to slow Borland. Such is life. Parting comments: Good stuff for $110 (shipping counts) upgrade or $260 for the package for smart buyers (get the earlier version and upgrade). Wish list: PLEASE MAKE 32 BIT CODE!!!!! I Can't stand much more of MicroWay C++. Tom Hite