cvs.gedasymbols.org/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/08/27/01:23:52

From: test AT test DOT fr (Cyber neuneu v0.1 beta 1)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: C++ Builder Works Fast: No it's a BIG SHIT!
Organization: ...
Message-ID: <37c6fd94.8830948@news.free.fr>
References: <37C047CA DOT DAE5F79C AT bigfoot DOT com> <9tjx3.2311$ua1 DOT 30278 AT news DOT tpnet DOT pl>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 36
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:53:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.232.26.243
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT proxad DOT net
X-Trace: nnrp2.proxad.net 935722407 212.232.26.243 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:53:27 MEST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:53:27 MEST
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

I'm sorry to tell you but the compiler in C++ Builder (I don't talk
about the ide and the components which are excellent) is a BIG SHIT!

I made some tests whith similar small codes in Java and C/C++
(originally I wanted to compare Java and C/C++ performance) and as I
owned DJGPP and C++ Builder 3, I could perform the C/C++ tests in both
environments.

My surprise was that C++ Builder (Commercial) is ALWAYS SLOWER than
Djgpp (Free) (with -O2 optimization for both compilers).

I have not finished all the tests I want to build but my early
conclusion is: If you want a REAL FAST compiler and you don't need a
great ide CHOOSE GPP!!!
It is particularly true when you need to use String class: on my 4th
test which is a selection sort on 10000 string objects (8 letters),
DJGPP took 12440 ms, Java (Sun's jdk 1.2 with JIT) 74000 ms and C++
Builder ... 164730 ms !!! (in other words more than 13 times slower
than DGJPP !!).

I think as far I'm concerned that this slowness is unacceptable from a
commercial product !
And I decided to use Borland compilers no longer...

My tests are available on
http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/radiohead/4/jbenche.htm
Sorry: only a few parts of this site are in english for the moment

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:46:29 GMT, "Tomasz Barańczuk"
<tomasz80 AT polbox DOT com> wrote:

>If the performance of Borland C++ doesn't give you a sattisfaction, so try Borland C++ Builder. It
>supports very good optimalization, but don't allow to create programs that run under pure DOS (it's
>not a problem now) and to move them from UNIX platform (it's a big one).
>

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019