From:	fbarlett AT lynx DOT dac DOT neu DOT edu (ferruccio barletta)
Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Subject:	Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision
Followup-To:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Date:	12 Sep 1997 20:13:10 GMT
Organization:	Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Lines:	39
Message-ID:	<5vc7om$mt7@isn.dac.neu.edu>
References:	<3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <3412DDA8 DOT C428AF45 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <341316EA DOT E14 AT mho DOT net> <34158665 DOT 8731090 AT news DOT concentric DOT net> <34148F08 DOT 7A16 AT pacbell DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	lynx.dac.neu.edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

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 -