I am an Engineering Student from University Of Mumbai::RAIT. I am learning C++ from "C++ Primer" by Stanley Lipman and using Visual C++ 2008 as IDE. But, my institute and most of the institutes in my University prefer to use Turbo C++(Version 3.0) by Borland International. What arguments can I put against the use of Turbo C++ in my institute?
P.S.: I am sorry for any mistakes that I made with use of English.
Seriously though, you could say the software harmed kittens, getting I.T deparments that have no clue about how things work, to change, is hard.
Good luck.
Because they already own Turbo C++ (i.e. no cost), it's very simple, and it works? The problem with Visual Studio is that you end up spending a lot of time teaching students about the IDE, instead of focusing on the language.
I am surprised that Turbo C++ is still around. For its time it was pretty decent, but that was a long time ago. My primary concern about using it today would be its lack of support for any recent additions to the C++ language.
There are other free C++ compilers available. Visual Studio Express is free as well and so is the GNU compiler. They are both a lot more up to date with the development for the language.
OMFG, Turbo C is really really old.
OTOH it has a very short compile->run and compile->run->debug cycle. The editor is nice and the IDE is so simple that you can understand all options within a day.
Maybe your instructors decided to use Turbo-C because of it's simplicity. You don't have to learn which buttons to press and which buttons not, and which submenus (which may spawn another 100 submenues).
As a beginner it is easy to get lost in the Visual Studio IDE. Turbo C is much easier.
If it comes to understand a programming-language it is about the programming-language, not about understanding now to configure an IDE, and the Turbo C compiler is as good as visual C++ for learning the language (caveat: Not for production code).
Resume: Turbo C is easier as you don't have to deal with the environment but lets you concentrate on your task: Learning C. Imho it's a clever move of your prof to let you write code in TC.
1.Make some research into what is the best way c++ can be taught.
2.Prepare a white paper explaining the way and arguments with proven evidence.
3.Influence a few professors and present them with the papers.
4.Host a few sessions explaining your ideas with a few PPT files.
5.Win people over.
6.Invite a few expert FOSS and commercial vendors into your campus and have a discussion
7.Find out who makes the recommendations for the syllabus in the unversity and get them to change it.
8.Organize a strike to change the shit.Break all the computers in your lab.
8.If all above fail screw them and learn for you own good from the real masters.
TC++ is old real old.
I also learned c++ in turbo c++ and faced following problems when i went into real world:
1) turbo c++ is certainly not used anywhere at work so, you feel lost at first trying to use c++ in eclipse/visual studio, etc. setting up the dev environment, itself causes a lot of trouble.
2) turbo c++ has dos as it's runtime environment, and you end up learning near/far pointers and dos memory model for tc++ programs which is of no use outside of institute.
3) dos runtime environment will cause segmnetatin/memory access violation errors far less than in win32/linux environment and you may mess up your pointer concepts without these errors in learning phase.
4) also it has no support for template based libraries, etc. learning these concepts at work from scratch can be a bit of trouble at work place.
Dev C++ is the convenient for all purposes I think. TurboC++ is a real problem i indian universities.
I never understood why a great number of institutions in the subcontinent still insist on using Turbo C++ for teaching. It's not like they paid for it, all of them are running warez copies anyway.
The solution could be to point them to Dev-C++. Although it's not under active development anymore, the latest version still comes with a relatively up-to-date compiler (MingW/GCC 3.4.2) for learning purpose.
IMO, it's the most suitable replacement for the following reasons:
Consider presenting them with examples of important C++ applications that cannot be compiled with Turbo C++. I assume that such applications are very easy to find, e.g. anything that uses Boost. Perhaps present also which C++ features simply do not work in it. Build your argument on real-world software using these features and thus that it is important to learn them as well.
Since price is very likely an issue there, suggest GCC and possibly Code::Blocks if an IDE is desired. Both are very high quality free software and they also work on Linux. In my own teaching I prefer not to teach IDE on the basic course, as there are little benefits using one, but setting up a new project for every tiny exercise takes time. Teaching how to use the IDE is also always away from something else.
I learned to program using Borland Pascal and Borland C in the DOS world. I have to say, to this day, I think Borland's IDE is one of the best ever made. The edit-compile-run cycle is extremely fast, the online documentation (of the language) is superb and easy to use, and associated tools (Turbo Debugger) are great too. If I had to learn programming all over again, I'd choose Borland again. It's a pity the company seems to have lost its way.
For learning C, there should be no disadvantage to using the Borland product. You'll have to relearn some system calls when you move over to a POSIX system, but there's a benefit in learning multiple systems and the differences aren't that great anyway.
For C++, you will run into some more severe problems with Borland C++, but not immediately. I doubt that Borland C++ has decent support for the Standard Template Library (STL). If you're just learning the basics of classes, objects, inheritance, etc, this will not be a problem. After you master these skills, install g++ and go from there...
Turbo C is a real real old, and an ancient compiler! Actually there arent any arguments as such that you can put to convince your professors to use modern IDEs like MS Visual C++, or Code::Blocks or any other good IDE for that matter.
Besides, there are lots of problems with Turbo C++(Im kinda sure TC3 is being used). I have no idea absolutely how you are going to convince them! :P
The compiler has bugs and does not issue proper diagnostic messages for erroneous programs..
You end up learning C with classes instead of C++ (kind of) :D :P
if the reason they are using turbo c++ because its free then you can tell them gcc and vi editor are also free of cost and offer much better compiler/editor and also its used in industry so it will increase placement opportunities of students
Check out this link: Click Here.
If they are not still convinced, go on a strike, as someone above suggested!
The best possible way to revolt would be to ask a 4th year student to put this question with the professionals that take up the recruitment during placements.. Im sure if u r going to tell them that the professors of the institute from which they are hiring are so unwilling to change to modern c++ compilers... that will really spark the discussion with the concerned professors and maybe it would become an interview process with the professors instead..haha :) And perhaps the question putter would be half way through the interview!! ;)
All the very Best.
First you should find out for what reasons the institutes do still use this over-antiquated thing, and who has enough influence to change this. Are it really the professors? Or is it the IT department? Or some other guys? From a users perspective, there are tons of reasons to change to a newer compiler, but those reasons might not help you if the IT department is the one to be convinced. Those people might listen to other things like
Why do you think using an old IDE for teaching C++ is bad?
In the case of teaching a C++ 101 class, I only see advantages:
Very fast compile-run cycles: This means you can run lots of examples in a very short time. With "professional" IDEs like Visual C++, you have to sit there for minutes for each compile cycle.
IDE GUI is so small that you can actually find the menu entries you need.
The goal of a C++ introduction is to teach the language, and not the APIs of libraries, operating systems, Windowing systems. So Borland C++ is way less distracting than Visual C++ in this respect. You can fully focus on C++, and for the little IO you need to do, printf/scanf is fully sufficient.
So in your case (C++ 101) I believe that switching to a more modern IDE would only slow students down and make the learning process more difficult.
First of all, I think it's a good thing they start with teaching Turbo C++, I learned a lot during my MS DOS - years (started with Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ myself).
However, I gave you a +1 because I think you raised a very valid question and I like people who are actively engaging in making things better for everyone.