Board index » cppbuilder » Turbo C++: No C++ code folding :(

2006-12-08 06:51:34 PM
cppbuilder55
I just downloaded, installed and tried out Turbo C++ Express. I've been
lately
using Visual C++ Express. I'm sticking with Visual because of the superior
code folding: it folds classes and inline methods and comments where Turbo
doesn't. My codebase has become such that good folding is a required feature
of my editor/IDE choice.
The project manager in the free Turbo is much better than in the free Visual
(the feature is crippled in the free Visual). I believe the purchased
version of
Visual would be adequate.
Both of the IDEs are way to busy looking, but then I don't use any of the
RAD
features/components. (And why would I use Pascal components anyway, in
the case of Turbo?)
The free Visual and Turbo IDEs seem to represent the departure from offering
free command line compilers. (So much for the thought of building my own
IDE! Oh wait, I could still do that, but have to buy Turbo Pro. But why do
that
when there's gcc?).
Just a few quick thoughts.
Tony
 

"Tony" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
and have never felt the "need" for something like code folding. Are
your functions 2000 lines long or something?
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

"Tony" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
I have been using them since BCB1 and they 'just work'
Why re-write something in C++ when you can talk to Pascal
classes without a problem - just as you can with .NET.
Rgds Pete
 

{smallsort}

"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
in the header file, it's nice to be able to collapse the function bodies to
get
an overall view of the class. .cpp files with many functions/methods:
folding
makes working on the first and the last one simultaneously easy, without
having
to split a text view or work in two text windows. It's just so nice to be
able to
work at a higher level of abstraction not faced with all the detail and
scrolling.
It keeps one more aware of the design and that boosts productivity too.
Stuff like that.
Tony
 

"Pete Fraser" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:457986c2$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
before I would use something available only in one IDE.
Tony
 

"Tony" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
reason you mention: writing inline functions in the class makes them
hard to read. We write out-of-line inline functions, and put them in
a seperate file that the header file #includes at the bottom. That
way it is "like" they are in the header, but physically are seperate.
(And so the class is nice and readable, without exposing all the
implementation detail like Java forces you to do.)
different sections of files in as many splits as you want, it's just
second nature to me.
were that required this feature. Not that I'm saying it's wrong or
that I'm trying to convince you otherwise--just that there are other
ways to deal with the problem and so we look at things differently.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

"Tony" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
code folding and I work with some fairly large code bases.
I guess it's a matter of preference.
 

"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
the "project manager" sucks in the free version). Release builds are always
via makefiles for me anyway (though I think both vendors have nixed the free
command line tools?).
Tony
 

"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
or collapse code. It's slick. I like it. It's improved my productivity by
increasing the amount of code I can work with without having to resort
to diagramming tools (the latter of which I've discovered a good free
one lately: Doxygen).
Short of working with higher level things like diagrams, I think it's the
best thing since sliced bread. Of course if I could afford a monster-sized
monitor (or 2. or 3!), that would be an even bigger benefit.
Tony
 

"Tony" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
home. I use MSVC2003 and BCB6 (mostly MSVC these days)
at work. I think in all 4 cases, the IDEs could be improved but
MSVC2003 seems like the most useful one. I don't generally
do command line builds though it's possible to do with all
4. Once projects get large, handling make files is less amusing.
Then project management functions get to be more important.
I think that you're correct though in that neither company
seems to be offering a free standalone command line compiler.
I think it was a good move by Borland to offer Turbo C++ for
free though. I guess the demand these days for a compiler without
an IDE is minimal. At any rate, you can always use g++ if you
like command line stuff.
The things the I find important in an IDE are debugging tools,
and project management.
I'm more concerned with the compiler compliance and
optimization generally though.
 

Click on the "Compiler" link.
. Ed

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
BDS/Turbo?
 

"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
BCB5. BDS' compiler version is 5.8x, and I can't say what Turbo's version
is.
- Dennis
 

Dennis Jones wrote:
Jonathan
 

"Jonathan Benedicto" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
of 5.8 then.
 

Duane Hebert wrote:
include the command-line compiler with the free Explorer editions.
Jonathan