When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as new compilers were concerned (well, new to me, anyway). I dearly loved SC++, and had invested a good portion of time and money into it, so I was not especially pleased with the idea of finding a different compiler. Nevertheless, if I wanted the newest features of C++ and wanted some support, I would have to make the switch.

I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue.

Ok, next was classic Borland C++. Umm... No thanks. I like my executables to be small and quick, thank you. And, I really HATE all of those miserable warnings about everything from variables that "might not be initialized" to minor type conversion complaints.

What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Welcome to Nerf++. Well, at least the program CD makes a good coaster for my mug of hot cocoa?

I looked very briefly at Metrowerks CodeWarrior. The potential was there, but I did not care for the poor excuses for integrated components.

Watcom? Geez, another dead compiler that's just pitifully organized. Bugs, too.

Wait a moment?.. I forgot about good ol' IBM! So, off we go to get VisualAge C++. Hmm, I must enjoy wasting my money -- this was a hideous experience. Not only is this a stubborn program to install, it makes huge  executables and has very limited platform support. To add insult to injury, the latest patch file was 141M compressed/340M unpacked, and it removed the Win32 SDK! Did I mention that IBM is discontinuing the Windows version? *sigh*

So, after checking for a possible replacement to SC++/DMC++, I made an important conclusion : one cannot replace the best of the best (JAK said it best: "The eagle flies very high -- and alone."). Even if I must sacrifice some of the latest standard features, I cannot replace SC++/DMC++, as all others are a bigger step backwards than forwards.

I've come home.

Wow! What a nice message. Glad to have you back! -Walter

Matt Morgan wrote in message <95a9c1$1k6f$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as
new
>compilers were concerned (well, new to me, anyway). I dearly loved SC++,
and
>had invested a good portion of time and money into it, so I was not especially pleased with the idea of finding a different compiler. Nevertheless, if I wanted the newest features of C++ and wanted some support, I would have to make the switch.
>
>I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a
bummer
>of an IDE. Let the search continue.
>
>Ok, next was classic Borland C++. Umm... No thanks. I like my executables
to
>be small and quick, thank you. And, I really HATE all of those miserable warnings about everything from variables that "might not be initialized" to minor type conversion complaints.
>
>What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create
an
>ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Welcome to Nerf++. Well, at least the program CD makes a good coaster for my mug of
hot
>cocoa?
>
>I looked very briefly at Metrowerks CodeWarrior. The potential was there, but I did not care for the poor excuses for integrated components.
>
>Watcom? Geez, another dead compiler that's just pitifully organized. Bugs, too.
>
>Wait a moment?.. I forgot about good ol' IBM! So, off we go to get
VisualAge
>C++. Hmm, I must enjoy wasting my money -- this was a hideous experience. Not only is this a stubborn program to install, it makes huge  executables and has very limited platform support. To add insult to injury, the latest patch file was 141M compressed/340M unpacked, and it removed the Win32 SDK! Did I mention that IBM is discontinuing the Windows version? *sigh*
>
>So, after checking for a possible replacement to SC++/DMC++, I made an important conclusion : one cannot replace the best of the best (JAK said it best: "The eagle flies very high -- and alone."). Even if I must sacrifice some of the latest standard features, I cannot replace SC++/DMC++, as all others are a bigger step backwards than forwards.
>
>I've come home.
>
>
>

Matt Morgan wrote in message <95a9c1$1k6f$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>I've come home.


Just out of curiousity, how did you find the new home (digitalmars)? It's not been indexed by the search engines yet.

(Though people can help by putting a link to it on their web sites so the web crawlers will find it! The more independent links to www.digitalmars.com there are, the higher it will be in the search rankings.)

-Walter

----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Morgan <geckofood@yahoo.com>

> I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue.

If you think the IDDE was bad, the code generations were even worse, and buggy. Take a look at what I found in Windows Developer's Journal, Vol.9 No. 12, 1998:

http://www.wdj.com/archive/0912/   Scroll down to Bug++ of the month.

Matt Morgan wrote:

> What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot.

And don't forget to mention the 'include path' misery and the horrifying editor and project manager.

Arjan

Hi Matt!

Very well put is my reaction!

I think averyone around here knows that I tend to keep all kinds and brands of
C++ compilers around. I certainly share the misery one has to go through with
any of the mentioned compilers. Where VC-- quits with an INTERNAL COMPILER
ERROR. BC++B might come with a better compiler than VC--, but their IDE is about
the worst I have ever seen. CodeWarrior is pain in the neck as well. Their IDE
stinks (about as bad as Borland's). Than they have about 10 characters to pass
-D #defines to the compiler...
So far I really prefer the light weight of the Digital Mars C++ IDDE and the
lightning fast compile speed. I mean... try to sort the nodes (or files) in a
VC-- project or BC++B project on type... .cpp/.hpp/.rc??? Has any one every
tried a project in BC++B with more than 25 .cpp files? Because only after that
many the real fun begins...

Anyways, Matt, I am delighted to hear that after your exploration you found that the Digital Mars C++ compiler isn't so bad eventhough it might be a little behind.

Let's keep it up!
Jan



Matt Morgan wrote:

> When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as new compilers were concerned (well, new to me, anyway). I dearly loved SC++, and had invested a good portion of time and money into it, so I was not especially pleased with the idea of finding a different compiler. Nevertheless, if I wanted the newest features of C++ and wanted some support, I would have to make the switch.
>
> I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue.
>
> Ok, next was classic Borland C++. Umm... No thanks. I like my executables to be small and quick, thank you. And, I really HATE all of those miserable warnings about everything from variables that "might not be initialized" to minor type conversion complaints.
>
> What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Welcome to Nerf++. Well, at least the program CD makes a good coaster for my mug of hot cocoa?
>
> I looked very briefly at Metrowerks CodeWarrior. The potential was there, but I did not care for the poor excuses for integrated components.
>
> Watcom? Geez, another dead compiler that's just pitifully organized. Bugs, too.
>
> Wait a moment?.. I forgot about good ol' IBM! So, off we go to get VisualAge C++. Hmm, I must enjoy wasting my money -- this was a hideous experience. Not only is this a stubborn program to install, it makes huge  executables and has very limited platform support. To add insult to injury, the latest patch file was 141M compressed/340M unpacked, and it removed the Win32 SDK! Did I mention that IBM is discontinuing the Windows version? *sigh*
>
> So, after checking for a possible replacement to SC++/DMC++, I made an important conclusion : one cannot replace the best of the best (JAK said it best: "The eagle flies very high -- and alone."). Even if I must sacrifice some of the latest standard features, I cannot replace SC++/DMC++, as all others are a bigger step backwards than forwards.
>
> I've come home.

"Arjan Knepper" <arjan@jak.nl> wrote in message news:3A798DBE.1F551C04@jak.nl...
> Matt Morgan wrote:
>
> > What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will
create an
> > ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot.
>
> And don't forget to mention the 'include path' misery and the horrifying
editor
> and project manager.
>
> Arjan
>

What's the include path misery? -Walter

The C++BUILDER IDE automagically adds the project source file path(s) to the compiler include path. And your not able to control the hierarchy.

Walter wrote:

>
> What's the include path misery? -Walter

Jan Knepper wrote:

> tried a project in BC++B with more than 25 .cpp files? Because only after that many the real fun begins...

Yep 149 cpp files in one project (ORS), no problems in SC++/DMC++ IDDE, a hard thing to manage in BC++B never tried it in VC.

Arjan Knepper wrote:

> Yep 149 cpp files in one project (ORS), no problems in SC++/DMC++ IDDE, a hard thing to manage in BC++B never tried it in VC.

<g>
How large is the ORS executable these days???
I guess I wrote too much code in my early years...

Jan