Which is better?

[Vamp]

i wanna know what you recommend for c++ programming, Visual C++, Borland C++Builder, or someother.

all i want is an opinion on what you think is better

[EvilCheese]

So long as you're writing ANSI standard code, it shouldnt matter particularly what compiler or development environment you are using. It's only when you get into using specific tools and technologies (Such as the satanic MFC and Borland's equivalent of it) that it really makes a difference.

Personally I use MS Visual C++, but that's mainly because I've been using it for a long time and I'm used to it.... plus it integrates nicely with the DirectX9 SDK.

Your choice is a matter of preference.... but as I mentioned, think about any extension technologies you may wish to use before deciding.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Everyone uses VC++.

[Kp]

I use gcc.

[iago]

I use gcc and VS.net, depending on what I'm doing.

[Adron]

I use those, BC++3.1, VS97 and the DDK Build Environment (much the same as vc.net) depending on what I'm doing.

[Skywing]

I use those, BC++3.1, VS97 and the DDK Build Environment (much the same as vc.net) depending on what I'm doing.

Eww, what possible reason is there for stooping to the level of... Borland?!

[Zakath]

So you can take advantage of the incredibly optimized and easy-to-use Visual Component Library of course!

</sarcasm>

Honestly, I have no idea either. I used Borland for a while (Sky, Kp, Yoni...maybe a few others, you probably remember that). After switching to MSVC, I haven't encountered one thing yet that Borland did better, except provide a much bulkier and totally redundant IDE.

Oh yeah...I use gcc on *Nix platform machines, MSVC7 when I'm doing the coding on my own.

[Grok]

Borland used to be THE compiler for PCs, until Microsoft, like they always do, used their money power to squash them by practically giving away MSC6 and MSC7, and then VC1, VC1.5, VC2.  Borland tried to compete, but they couldn't compete at a loss on their product for years.

[Skywing]

Borland used to be THE compiler for PCs, until Microsoft, like they always do, used their money power to squash them by practically giving away MSC6 and MSC7, and then VC1, VC1.5, VC2.  Borland tried to compete, but they couldn't compete at a loss on their product for years.

That's the thing, though - used to be.  Why anybody would still want to use it right now is what I'm wondering.

[Adron]

That's the thing, though - used to be.  Why anybody would still want to use it right now is what I'm wondering.

Hmm, I've just never gotten to like generating 16-bit code with Microsofts C++ compilers.  

[Etheran]

MSVC6, gcc, djgpp(very first c/c++ compiler)

[Grok]

That's the thing, though - used to be.  Why anybody would still want to use it right now is what I'm wondering.

I don't know about now, but before MSVC 32-bit compilers, Borland and Watcom were the innovators in compiler features, and Microsoft was a follower.  Once Microsoft perfected their build cycles and were able to release a new compiler every 18 months or so, jam-packed with new features each time, nobody else was able to keep up.  That's the story as I remember it.

There are several reasons I can think of to continue using Borland.  The main one is if all your company's development was done with Borland tools and you have tens of millions of lines of code to maintain.  If all your previous development was done with Borland, doing new development with Microsoft doesn't make much economical sense, unless there are features you must have from MS that don't exist in Borland today.

[Skywing]

That should not be a problem; the code should be portable between compilers as long as you didn't get suckered into using something like VCL.

[Grok]

That should not be a problem; the code should be portable between compilers as long as you didn't get suckered into using something like VCL.

IIRC, Borland had a library nomered as OWL, which maybe stood for Object Windows Library.  I'm assuming that was their 32-bit windows sdk, but I'm making a lot of assumptions here.