Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!crackers.clearpoint.com!daveg From: daveg@intruder.clearpoint.com (Dave Goldblatt) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: TP IDE and BC++ IDE (works for me..) Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 15:55:02 GMT References: <1991Apr8.114055.26550@qut.edu.au> <6445@bwdls58.bnr.ca> <73404@brunix.UUCP> Sender: news@crackers.clearpoint.com Reply-To: daveg@intruder.clearpoint.com Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp, Hopkinton MA 01748 Lines: 47 In-reply-to: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu's message of 24 Apr 91 21:33:28 GMT -=> 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 01748