Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!dftsrv!oneel
From: oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: TP IDE and BC++ IDE
Message-ID: <ONEEL.91Apr25095449@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 25 Apr 91 13:54:48 GMT
References: <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca>
	<73404@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: STX/GSFC Nasa
Lines: 64
In-reply-to: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu's message of 24 Apr 91 21:33:28 GMT

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