>>I am interested in hearing opinions from professional programmers on the
>>relative merits of Borland and Microsoft development products,
>Traditionally, throughout the 80's at least, Borland was always the best
>compiler producer between the two, certainly up to BC++3.1 (4.0 and 4.5
>had "problems", in the opinion of most programmers). I lost count of the
>number of people who thought that the Microsoft compilers were *(and
>that's more or less in the days before people slagged Microsoft just for
>the fun of it).
>The Borland compilers were faster, produced faster and more reliable
>code (although not as fast as Watcom etc), and generally had better
>compiler error messages and an IDE.
>Microsoft have clearly invested a large number of millions of dollars
>with their current very professional (and often very impressive)
>compiler/environments. However, I don't know about the current Borland
>(Inprise) products. It would be good to see the technical comments of a
>current Borland user, particularly one who has been using the Borland
>products since the early days of TC and TC++ (to see if things have
>continued to go downhill from BC++4.0), and one who knows both the
>current Borland and MS development environments intimately, especially
>on characteristics such as compilation speed, code efficiency, compiler
>Does such a person exist and read Usenet ?
Sure, there's a few of us out here :)
I've used Borland since TurboC 2. IMO the best product
Borland ever made was BC++ 3.1. (1992, same time as
Windows 3.1 came out). It's compact, fast, has a nice IDE
for both DOS & Windows and includes a command-line
compiler too. I keep it on my laptop, because it doesn't
require 64 Mb of memory and 300 Mb of disk space.
I skipped all of the version 4 products, because I wasn't doing
much programming then. I have BC++ 5.02 now and it's very
good, but my needs are simple, so I continue to use BC++ 3.1.
I have a pile of DOS/Windows code in libraries that needs
to be ported to Win32 someday, but it's a low priority for
I don't use OWL or MFC, so that part of the compiler is
irrelevant to me. A nice feature of BC++ 5.02 is that it
can create 16-bit DOS and Windows apps as well as
32-bit console & Windows apps. I think VC++ can only
create Win32 apps.
I don't know how CBuilder (successor to BC++ 5) compares
with Delphi, but I think they are comparable products.
All of that drop & drag component stuff doesn't interest
Hmm, I guess I've pretty well labelled myself a dinosaur...
John A. Grant * I speak only for myself * (remove 'z' to reply)
Airborne Geophysics, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa
If you followup, please do NOT e-mail me a copy: I will read it here