Board index » cppbuilder » Borland C++ revisited :(

Borland C++ revisited :(


2003-07-08 07:21:01 PM
cppbuilder101
I've been working on a Borland C++ 5.01a project recently and had forgotten
how good BCB was compared to it. It's quite painful using it and changing
things (and I used to think it was good using OWL etc. at the time) Wow, we
musn't go back to the dark ages again.
Long live VCL!
Pete
 
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Pete Fraser wrote:
Quote
I've been working on a Borland C++ 5.01a project recently and had forgotten
how good BCB was compared to it. It's quite painful using it and changing
things (and I used to think it was good using OWL etc. at the time) Wow, we
musn't go back to the dark ages again.
I am SO happy that the VCL was available before I got serious with C++
<g>
--
AlisdairM
Delphi Defector
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Yes, I remember Turbo Vision. I did a simple app in that. Of course it was
*much* better than what MS had (did they have anything?). But there again I
remember apps I wrote in CP/M - text mode - yuk. But lets not go into
reminiscing (I can't spell that word?) or we'll fill up the news servers.
Rgds Pete
"Andrue Cope" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Alisdair Meredith,
Quote
I am SO happy that the VCL was available before I got serious with C++
<g>

--
AlisdairM
Delphi Defector

Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?
 

{smallsort}

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Pete Fraser wrote:
Quote
I've been working on a Borland C++ 5.01a project recently and had
forgotten how good BCB was compared to it. It's quite painful using
it and changing things (and I used to think it was good using OWL
etc. at the time) Wow, we musn't go back to the dark ages again.
You have to upgrade to BC++ 5.02. No wonder you are having so many problems
<g>.
OWL was great, and much better than MFC anyday. But the VCL is much better.
Now if only Borland would fix their bugs and give us a really great product.
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Andrue Cope wrote:
Quote
Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?
Only TurboVision I used was the TurboPascal version. Same for OWL <g>
--
AlisdairM
Team Thai Kingdom
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Alisdair Meredith,
Quote
Only TurboVision I used was the TurboPascal version. Same for OWL <g>

I used TV mainly for Pascal but did dabble in it for TC. The TC version
was one release behind (sound familiar) and not easy to use.
Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Quote
Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?
I'm still have a live Application using Turbo Vision and the
old BC++ 3.1 ( yes a dos version ). Isn't that amazing :-)
BR
Antonio
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Now that is amazing, but then if it isn't broke, why fix it...
Rgds Pete
"Antonio Felix" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?
I'm still have a live Application using Turbo Vision and the
old BC++ 3.1 ( yes a dos version ). Isn't that amazing :-)
BR
Antonio
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Antonio Felix,
Quote
I'm still have a live Application using Turbo Vision and the
old BC++ 3.1 ( yes a dos version ). Isn't that amazing :-)

I have one as well. It's a disk editor used by our hardware guys. I
occasionally have to fight to stop feature requests being raised on
it. The rest of us use the Windows version but hardware engineers
tend to be luddites and they get nervous when they see a monitor in
anything other than text mode :)
Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Quote
I have one as well. It's a disk editor used by our hardware guys. I
occasionally have to fight to stop feature requests being raised on
it. The rest of us use the Windows version but hardware engineers
tend to be luddites and they get nervous when they see a monitor in
anything other than text mode :)
When you can only boot the machine from a floppy disk .... ;)
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Andrue Cope wrote:
Quote
tend to be luddites and they get nervous when they see a monitor in
I'd say they tend to be neo-luddites :)
.a
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Pete Fraser wrote:
Quote
I've been working on a Borland C++ 5.01a project recently and had forgotten
how good BCB was compared to it. It's quite painful using it and changing
things (and I used to think it was good using OWL etc. at the time) Wow, we
musn't go back to the dark ages again.

Long live VCL!
Pete


BC++ has a project manager that is light years ahead of what BCB calls a
project manager. It boggles my mind to think we had it 10 years ago!
.a
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Pete Fraser wrote:

>I've been working on a Borland C++ 5.01a project recently and had forgotten
>how good BCB was compared to it. It's quite painful using it and changing
>things (and I used to think it was good using OWL etc. at the time) Wow, we
>musn't go back to the dark ages again.
>
>Long live VCL!
>Pete
>
>
BC++ has a project manager that is light years ahead of what BCB calls a
project manager. It boggles my mind to think we had it 10 years ago!
Amen to that. In fact, it almost looks like Microsoft's inspiration for the
project manager in VS.NET came from the old BC project manager.
sm
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Quote
Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?
TV was cool though, I created a bacon slicer control program with it.
Not many people can, nor want to, make that same claim.
One problem with TV is that it resulted in apps that were difficult to
fit in conventional RAM, and overlays were broke in BC5. Still pretty
neat for its time.
h^2
 

Re:Borland C++ revisited :(

Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
>Turbo Vision anyone? Dialog designer - what dialog designer?

TV was cool though, I created a bacon slicer control program with it.
Not many people can, nor want to, make that same claim.

One problem with TV is that it resulted in apps that were difficult to
fit in conventional RAM, and overlays were broke in BC5. Still pretty
neat for its time.
That 640 DOS limit was for many years one of the most ridiculous things
about microcomputer programming. There were endless tools and programming
products, whole companies sometimes, that made a living out of overcoming
that barrier. Thank goodness that nonsense is gone.
The other amazing thing that I found from those early days of microcomputer
programming, which are only a mere 14 years ago or more, was that Intel was
chosen for the ubiquitous PC when both Motorola and Zilog had much superior
16 bit, and eventually 32 bit instruction sets. Thank goodness I don't ever
have to do Intel assembly language programming anymore.