Why is Borland C++ better than VC++?
+1
A:
Borland C++ has long had a reputation for being more standards compliant than Visual Studio.
Having said that, I've used both and I hated working with the Borland compiler. It's just awful. Their IDE is atrociously bad; it's slow and very unstable
If I had a choice between the two and either would do the job I'd use Visual Studio without hesitation.
Andrew
2008-09-06 22:54:42
+4
A:
if I remember correctly, it also had the reputation to be blazingly fast compared to the other compilers of the time. Also, Borland C++ had a Visual GUI Builder quite early around (Borland C++ Builder) which made it a bit easier to start with.
I'd still go for Microsoft Visual Studio as an IDE, and if there are gripes with the Compiler, i'd have a look at the Intel C++ Compiler.
Michael Stum
2008-09-06 23:03:57
+9
A:
I think the real reason the Borland C++ compiler was liked more and considered better than Visual C++ is because the class library for building Win32 applications was dramatically cleaner and easier to learn than Microsoft's Foundation Class (MFC) libraries.
Tall Jeff
2008-09-07 00:02:28
That was definitely true in my case.
Toybuilder
2008-11-13 01:00:47
VCL was much better, hell, even OWL was better, and that says something.
Darren Clark
2009-04-09 05:45:29
+4
A:
If you're not using .Net, Borland's VCL is way better than MFC. It's just so much easier to use.
However, from an IDE perspective, Visual Studio has just about caught up to Borland in terms of features and C++ standards compliance since the 2005 version.
Joel Coehoorn
2008-09-07 01:47:06
+3
A:
Turbo C, and then Tubo C++ and Borland C++ were faster, produced faster and more standard compliant code. But most importantly they were also cheaper. And the IDE was fantastic (at the time). The turbo products caused lots of consternation for MS when they came out.
MS played the catch up game, and by about Visual Studio 6 it made faster code, probably was as standard compliant and bundled in a way that it was probably cheaper too.
David L Morris
2008-09-07 02:06:29
A:
C++ Builder was cancer upon the earth...
Yes, VCL was way better than MFC, and that's the only reason I would use C++ builder over VS, in 1999.
At that time I used Delphi, and to go from Delphi to C++ Builder... shiver.
Now I still have fondness for Delphi, but prefer C#. Anders got a second chance, and got to make breaking changes while designing a new language. Some things I like (standard event handler signatures), some things I don't (commingling of interface and implementation, not treating classes as first class objects), but overall it's a better language.
As for the way back machine, Borland's compilers were better and faster. Borland's IDE's were actually usable without a master's degree.
Darren Clark
2009-04-09 05:43:43
+2
A:
Borland C++ used to have reputation for faster build times, smaller EXE files than Visual C/C++
Their DOS product is highly respected. Their Borland C/C++ 3.1, 4.0 was really excellent product in the DOS days.
Their Win16 product could use both 32-bit Win32-subset and 16-bit VBX on the same Win16 platform.
These were old times when Borland C/C++ was better.
There is no Borland C/C++ for 64-bits ... :(
buttercup
2010-07-16 11:34:03