Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/14/23:02:20
Ron Hiler (bndwgn AT pacbell DOT net) wrote:
: Avery Lee wrote:
: Only the
: > crappiest of 32-bit compilers (hmmm... Borland? :) ) would be beaten by a
: > 16-bit compiler in terms of the speed of a serious program.
: >
: >
: > -- Avery Lee (Psilon AT concentric DOT net)
: This comment is of some concern to me. I use Borland compilers, and am
: about to upgrade to the new version (either Builder or 5.0 (right?)).
: Is there some significant reason Borland is bad? Should I go with
: something else? (Please dont say DJGPP, I'm addicted to the IDE).
: I'm not interested in getting drawn into a best compiler war, but if
: there is a good reason to avoid the new Borland compilers, I would like
: to know before I go spend several hundred dollars on one.
: Thanks.
: Ron
Borland C++ 5.0 was, to put it nicely, a piece of crap. Borland rushed
to get it out to market and it showed. The IDE was flaky. The compiler
was buggy. We spent a lot of time tracking problems that turned out to
be bugs in OWL.
I got 5.02 a few weeks ago and I am pretty happy with it. They seem
to have fixed most of the bugs that plagued 5.0. I also use VC++ 5.0.
I prefer VC++'s IDE over Borland's IDE, but OWL is so much nicer than
MFC (when all the bugs are out).
I don't usually bother with optimization comparisons. If a piece of code
is not fast enough:
1) improve the algorithm
2) write it in assembly language
FGB
- Raw text -