Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cec2!news From: wilcox@wucs1.wustl.edu (Don Wilcox) Subject: Re: TP IDE and BC++ IDE Message-ID: <1991Apr25.135815.19679@cec1.wustl.edu> Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO References: <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca> <73404@brunix.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 13:58:15 GMT >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 |