Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Re: Borland vs. Microsoft


2003-10-20 04:18:00 PM
cppbuilder105
Hi,
For what it is worth...
Your choice surely depends on your own development requirements. Are you
developng for Win platform, Linux, or others.
I have seen posted
"Current C++Builder incarnation is the last on this line. Future
development will be done on C++Builder X, which is an entirely
different beast."
I am not so sure we know this to be true, howver even if it is then if you
are dependant on cross platform then MSVC is not the tool for you, good as
it is.
I actually use both, most of my work is done in Builder5 and Kylix3, however
when I am doing a Win only app for .net I will use MS tools. But I do by far
even with the problems prefer Borland.
Regards
Simon ain
TENdotZERO
 
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Hi all, i'm a Delphi developer. Because of the market, i'm trying to move to
C++. It's so popular than Delphi and have a larger community than Delphi.
But i'm not sure the product should i use.. Microsoft Visual C++ or Borland
C++ Builder.. C++ Builder is my choice because of my related VCL experince
in Delphi. But i'm not sure, Visual C++ is so popular in the market and MFC
experience is required for most of C++ jobs. It means that Borland C++ is
not popular as Visual C++. When i'm thinking about all, i become confused..
Don't understand me wrong i don't want to switch to C++ completely. I want
to continue to develop with Delphi but i need to have deep C++ experince
too. Most of the professional softwares on the market is developing by C++
and all the popular software companies hires C++ developers.
Microsoft is coming so strongly in these days. Borland is not updating its
own site too. It looks like they are no longer wants to develop anything
new. Is Borland really in control of Microsoft ? I'm afraid about all the
things as a Borland developer.. This is the reason i'm confused about to
decide between Borland C++ and Visual C++ :(( Please give me your opinions
and advices about it..
Kind Regards,
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

NeonBlue wrote:
Quote
Hi all, i'm a Delphi developer. Because of the market, i'm trying to
move to C++. It's so popular than Delphi and have a larger community
than Delphi. But i'm not sure the product should i use.. Microsoft
Visual C++ or Borland C++ Builder.. C++ Builder is my choice because
of my related VCL experince in Delphi.
Current C++Builder incarnation is the last on this line. Future
development will be done on C++Builder X, which is an entirely
different beast. At this moment it provides no support for visual VCL
development, and we're all waiting for an official Borland Open Letter
which will, hopefully, clarify what to expect in the future in that
regard.
--
Ken
planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Hi
My company (not small) now stop all development with Borland products (C++Builder, Delphi and Interbase) and start porting our projects to C# and MS SQL. I think what Borland now die and have no future even with Delphi 8.
Best regards
and no not lost your time and money with Borland.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

C++ Builder 6 is a great product, Delphi 7 too. But Borland canceled the
further development of both. Focusing MS's .NET and C++ Builder X, they
don't care about our investments in VCL and CLX based code. And they
won't also care about your's.
Beginning with 1996 (BCB1) I was a fan of Borland tools, but now - like
many others - our company will change to MS and OpenSource (#Develop).
The only chance they have is a completely turnaround of their current
strategy.
Best regards
Fred
NeonBlue wrote:
Quote
Hi all, i'm a Delphi developer. Because of the market, i'm trying to move to
C++. It's so popular than Delphi and have a larger community than Delphi.
But i'm not sure the product should i use.. Microsoft Visual C++ or Borland
C++ Builder.. C++ Builder is my choice because of my related VCL experince
in Delphi. But i'm not sure, Visual C++ is so popular in the market and MFC
experience is required for most of C++ jobs. It means that Borland C++ is
not popular as Visual C++. When i'm thinking about all, i become confused..
Don't understand me wrong i don't want to switch to C++ completely. I want
to continue to develop with Delphi but i need to have deep C++ experince
too. Most of the professional softwares on the market is developing by C++
and all the popular software companies hires C++ developers.

Microsoft is coming so strongly in these days. Borland is not updating its
own site too. It looks like they are no longer wants to develop anything
new. Is Borland really in control of Microsoft ? I'm afraid about all the
things as a Borland developer.. This is the reason i'm confused about to
decide between Borland C++ and Visual C++ :(( Please give me your opinions
and advices about it..

Kind Regards,


 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

C++ Builder? gonne with the xWind, Borland? gonnne with the Bill's wind.
Bill Gathes
Micro666 Corporation
(On behalf of the devil)
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

NeonBlue wrote:
Quote
Microsoft is coming so strongly in these days. Borland is not updating its
own site too. It looks like they are no longer wants to develop anything
new. Is Borland really in control of Microsoft ?
I would like to know the answer to that question as well.
Microsoft *has* invested in Borland and does have
"access to Inprise's technologies":
www.it-analysis.com/article.php
It's not readily apparent whether they STILL have access to current
technologies.
Here another link:
delphi.about.com/library/weekly/aa112902b.htm
Quote
I'm afraid about all the
things as a Borland developer.. This is the reason i'm confused about to
decide between Borland C++ and Visual C++ :(( Please give me your opinions
and advices about it..
Well, if I were you I would study C++ a lot more and focus on making
code that compiles in either environment.
One of your goals should be to have as much code as possible that can
compile using Microsoft, Borland, and GNU products.
Also, you should probably learn the STL ( very well ) if you are
interested in investing
in a framework that is readily available on many platforms.
Borland does make some kick ass products.
So don't limit your options.
Figure out how you can expand them.
Good luck.
Michael C.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Quote
C++ Builder 6 is a great product, Delphi 7 too. But Borland canceled the
further development of both. Focusing MS's .NET and C++ Builder X, they
This is untrue, There will be future development of Delphi on Win32
Platform as well as the .NET platform.
Reference:
bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,29952,00.html
See Question: "What if I plan to continue Win32 development?"
Robert Love
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Quote
C++ Builder? gonne with the xWind, Borland? gonnne with the Bill's wind.
If Borland had gone with only Microsoft why would they have moved to a
100% cross platform solution with BCBX. They now support Solaris
for the first time. Unlike before, Borland is now setup to provide
support outside of just Windows/Linux. I like the steps they are
taking and am seriously looking at CBX for future projects.
Robert Love
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Robert Love < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
>C++ Builder? gonne with the xWind, Borland? gonnne with the Bill's
wind.

If Borland had gone with only Microsoft why would they have moved to a
100% cross platform solution with BCBX. They now support Solaris
for the first time. Unlike before, Borland is now setup to provide
support outside of just Windows/Linux. I like the steps they are
taking and am seriously looking at CBX for future projects.

Robert Love

Yeah, but this "support" kind of bothers me. For one thing, they don't
really produce a compiler for anything other than Windows, and even there
they seem to be pushing Intel's compiler rather than their own. On
Solaris, you need to have Forte (at extra cost, I'm sure). With their C#
.NET product, they require Microsoft's compiler. They use a variety of
open-source and third-party tools (wxWindows, STLPort's STL, BOOST,
ACE/TAO, etc.). They've gone on a buying spree lately, buying up UML
stuff and Java stuff, but not building much of it in-house.
Now, this isn't a *bad* thing, but it makes me wonder where Borland's R&D
dollars are going. (It sure isn't going to QA, that's for sure....) One
of the reasons for going with Borland in the past was that they had a
credible alternative to Microsoft's offerings. Didn't like MFC? You
always had C++Builder with the VCL to fall back on. Didn't like VB? You
had Delphi. But now it seems that Borland is just giving up on being an
R&D house -- they are instead turning into an "aggregator", taking
technology from other places and integrating it into a single place.
Now again, this isn't necessarily *bad*. But I think Borland is going to
find that the value-add for such services is already low, and will get
lower still as open-source projects like Eclipse begin to mature.
Borland is trying to sell a very mediocre product line into a very picky
(and stingy) market. Developers will ask (have already been asking) why
they should fork over thousands of dollars to Borland when they can get
the same basic capabilities for nothing, and have an open-source codebase
to boot.
Borland really needs to clarify what their value-add is, and what their
role will be in the enterprise going forward. They don't really have a
compelling product line right now. .NET developers will go with Visual
Studio, Java developers will likely choose BEA or IBM's WebSphere, and
cross-platform C++ folks will probably stick with the usual mix of
editors and command-line tools. The other stuff in Borland's stable --
the UML tools, the testing suites, and so on -- are mediocre offerings
rather than best-of-breed tools, and are vastly overpriced at that.
I don't know. To me, it just seems like the Inprise fiasco is playing
itself out all over again.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

"Robert Love" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
>C++ Builder? gonne with the xWind, Borland? gonnne with the Bill's wind.

If Borland had gone with only Microsoft why would they have moved to a
100% cross platform solution with BCBX. They now support Solaris
for the first time. Unlike before, Borland is now setup to provide
support outside of just Windows/Linux. I like the steps they are
taking and am seriously looking at CBX for future projects.

Robert Love
They must think the $s are in X platforms. Whether it is the right strategic
desision or not,
well...time will tell.
"A good physics theory explains the observations, a great theory predicts
the unforseen"
Rodolfo
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Robert Love wrote:
Quote
There will be future development of Delphi on Win32
Platform as well as the .NET platform.
the open letter did not speak of any further development of Delphi on Win32, what Thornhill said could also be interpreted as simple maintenance.
--
.. P.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Yeah, but this "support" kind of bothers me. For one thing, they don't
really produce a compiler for anything other than Windows,
Last time I looked, Linux was something other than Windows. But I
expect even more platform support out of their new compiler.
Quote
and even there they seem to be pushing Intel's compiler rather than
their own.
No, it's just an added bonus. For 64-bit compiling, Intel is the way
to go on Intel platforms, however.
Quote
On Solaris, you need to have Forte (at extra cost, I'm sure).
Not true. You can use any compiler, including g++ (at no cost, I'm
sure). I'd suspect that if they're selling a C++ product for Solaris,
they'll ship with (at least one) C++ compiler. Don't be too quick to draw
conclusions.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Quote
With their C# .NET product, they require Microsoft's compiler.
Do you honestly think that Borland could produce a significantly better
C# to IL translator than microsoft? Even if they could, would anyone
want it?
H^2
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:

>Yeah, but this "support" kind of bothers me. For one thing, they
>don't really produce a compiler for anything other than Windows,

Last time I looked, Linux was something other than Windows. But I
expect even more platform support out of their new compiler.

>and even there they seem to be pushing Intel's compiler rather than
>their own.

No, it's just an added bonus. For 64-bit compiling, Intel is the way
to go on Intel platforms, however.

>On Solaris, you need to have Forte (at extra cost, I'm sure).

Not true. You can use any compiler, including g++ (at no cost, I'm
sure). I'd suspect that if they're selling a C++ product for Solaris,
they'll ship with (at least one) C++ compiler. Don't be too quick to
draw conclusions.

Chris, on what basis do you form your opinions? Borland, to my
knowledge, has *never* had a compiler for Solaris, especially on SPARC.
It'd be highly non-trivial to create one, as well (unless they simply
contribute patches to GCC to support their extensions). Also, there is
no "standard" GCC distribution for Solaris, AFAIK - there is the
Sunfreeware (which goes in /usr/local) in the Sun free tools (which goes
in /opt/bin, I think). Both compilers are themselves compiled with
different switches and patches, as well -- and they depend on Sun's
linker/assembler. Is Borland going to provide that infrastructure as
well? I doubt it.
I've never used Kylix on Linux -- can someone tell me if it uses a
Borland compiler or GCC? Some of the traffic on the various linux
mailing lists led me to believe that it was a patched version of GCC, but
I've forgotten. And in any case, it's a lot easier to port x86 compilers
across platforms than to create a new compiler for a different ISA like
SPARC or IA64 or PowerPC or....
As for the other points: Borland doesn't have the experience on other
platforms to be a player in the compiler space. Unix/Linux folks are
very picky about their toolchains, and unless Borland's compiler conforms
pretty closely to the gcc conventions, it's not going to get used. (Even
Intel had to add gcc switches after the outcry from the Linux folks.) I
just can't see Borland spending the time and effort to create compilers
for the Solaris/Linux platforms since their market share on these
platforms is likely to remain minuscule at best.
mr_organic