Board index » cppbuilder » Differences between BCB6 and TC++

2006-10-17 03:22:42 PM
cppbuilder112
What are the benefits of TC++ over BCB6? Should I switch to TC++? What is the Is the TC++ compiler/de{*word*81}/linker better than BCB6 one? I'm not using VCL very much, so also migrating to VC++ should not be a pain. What do you suggest?
Thank you in advance,
Luigi
 

"Luigi " < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:453484c2$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Gambit
 

Luigi napisa?a):
to all new technology introduced by Microsoft.
More important difference is that VC++ supports boost library, bcb2k6
not, and there are plans to abandon boost support for borland compiler.
Peter
 

{smallsort}

That's not completely true.
There are plans to abandon boost support for BCB6 *after*
the next release.
BCB2006 will still be supported.
Plus developing Win32 apps under VC++ is a nightmare.
Rgds Pete
"pbk++" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

"Pete Fraser" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
It mostly depends on what you use for
gui stuff. Non gui stuff is easier than BCB
since the compiler is better, supports
things like boost and actually optimizes
code.
I agree with the nightmare scenario if you
use MFC and winapi though.
 

OK, I guess I should have put that rider on the comment :)
It's a long time since I developped a non-GUI app....
Pete
"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
and
In article <45374e31$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
pbk++ < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
a variety of the libraries.
Are we using different meanings of the word "supports"?
--
-David
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
 

stuff easy but unless they fix the other stuff, you end up losing
the time you gained. (unless you do only gui stuff.)
I haven't found any MS tools that are useful for gui stuff but their
IDE/compiler/linker are pretty decent.
 

What non-gui areas do you think you lose productivity in?
The only one that I can think of is the de{*word*81} not being
helpful inside templates. But then I don't use templates as
much as I should :(
Rgds Pete
"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

"Pete Fraser" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
date, and the IDE itself has almost non-existent support for writing
COM/ATL objects in C++.
The IDE is also pretty bad at debugging heavily-threaded non-visual apps,
but this issue has been thrashed out pretty thoroughly both here and
elsewhere. Also, not being able to do background builds is a PITA for
large projects (although the make tool is at least functional now).
Finally, the IDE is almost bereft of non-visual "helpers" that used to be
present in Class Exporer (New Method, New Property, etc.).
If the only C++ work you do in BDS 2006 is VCL GUI stuff, BDS 2006 works
okay. But if you do any other kind of C++ work (i.e., the bulk of C++
work nowadays), it's barely adequate.
mr_organic
 

OK, I see why I haven't noticed the problems, I don't do
COM/ATL
I did notice the threading problems in BCB6 but haven't
ported that app to BDS2006 so haven't noticed that ....yet.
I never did use the ClassExplorer stuff as it took BCB6 down
too often so I uninstalled it :(
Backgroundbuilds would be nice but it always locked the
source file I was working on when compiling it so again I
turned it off.
Hopefully these will return in the future....
Rgds Pete
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:4537930f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

"Pete Fraser" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:453788ce$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
around with BDS a bit. Though since it's still basically
the same compiler with a different set of std libs...
The optimizer is so bad that you have to do some work-arounds
in many cases when a typically standard approach doesn't work.
See the threads in cppbuilder.language.cpp.
The dinkumware libs, while probably the best std lib around,
seem to rely heavily on some optimizations that Borland's
compiler doesn't do.
Problems with templates (at least in BCB6 - haven't tested much in BDS)
The de{*word*81}. Though this seems somewhat better in BDS.
Last time I tried with the current version of boost, there were problems
with some of the libs (spirit and threads IIRC). With BCB we stuck with
an older version of boost.
For us, the lack of compliance in the compiler is a problem as well
since we do cross platform stuff. Our code ports between MSVC
and g++ pretty much without problems. Not so easily with BCB.
Again, this may be different with BDS.
Not supporting utf8/unicode is also a problem for us.
As I say, I'm only even repsonding here since the latest
roadmaps didn't seem to address the compiler at all.
Improving the IDE is a good thing but not the only thing.
 

David Dean napisa?a):
For details see boost regression tests (
www.boost.org/more/regression.html ).
pregnant. I don't.
Peter
 

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, pbk++ < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote:
has shortcomings as well. The web site isn't working now to give exact
numbers or check other compilers.
--
-David
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
 

"David Dean" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
boost.org/more/regression.html