BorlandTalk.com Borland discussion newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Note that Borland has not committed to improved language com Goto page 1, 2  Next          BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Randall Parker Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:19 am    Post subject: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language com I wonder just how much resources Borland has committed to C++ under BDS. Will they just take what they have in terms of compiler and linker and other C++ specific stuff and integrate it with BDS and ship that? Or will they pick up where they left off a few years ago when they ceased to seriously improve C++ standards compliance and code generation and other shortcomings in the C++ tool chain (both compiler and linker and even libs) and seriously start to make their C++ support better? I want to use third party libraries and more advanced syntax with peace of mind that the stuff will actually work. I don't want to hit the wall with the linker or internal compiler problems. Also, what about project management? The OP programmers of Delphi might not care. But we C++ programmers do. So are we out of luck because it is too C++ specific? Bottom Line: Has Borland committed to the idea of doing enhancements aimed specifically at the needs of C++ programmers or are they going for a minimal approach to C++ support? That is the question that I think sums up a lot of different questions being raised here. Back to top Russell Hind Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:03 am    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Randall Parker wrote: Quote: I wonder just how much resources Borland has committed to C++ under BDS. Will they just take what they have in terms of compiler and linker and other C++ specific stuff and integrate it with BDS and ship that? That is the question. We'll have to wait. I can't see them leaving the current compiler where it is for long because standards compliance is becoming a bigger issue all the time. Not upgrading the compiler could be a big draw back for many customers. But it does depend on your needs. A projcet using lots of VCL libraries may well be satisfied by the current compiler. However, trying to use 3rd party C++ libraries is a completely different matter. This is the biggest announcement I'm waiting for. Quote: Also, what about project management? The OP programmers of Delphi might not care. But we C++ programmers do. So are we out of luck because it is too C++ specific? Bottom Line: Has Borland committed to the idea of doing enhancements aimed specifically at the needs of C++ programmers or are they going for a minimal approach to C++ support? It has been mentioned that project options are on a personality basis, so the C++ team are free to implement project options and option sets in any way they see fit (C# has the, delphi doesn't in D2005). The Delphi project manager is improved in that it automatically displays source files by folder so you nolonger get 1 big list of files. Doesn't look like it can handle multiple files with same name but in different directories which CBX can. I also don't see a way to switch all projects in a group to the same settings (debug/release) in one go so this would need to be added. It is definitely better than BCB6 but where it is good enough is yet to be seen. Cheers Russell Back to top Russell Hind Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:24 am    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Russell Hind wrote: Quote: I also don't see a way to switch all projects in a group to the same settings (debug/release) in one go so this would need to be added. What I'd really like to see from this is basically option sets for a project group. A bit like VS.Net batch build dialog but let you save these sets. Then you just switch the project group to a different set of options and it will switch the projects accordingly. This would allow you to save a configuration where some projects were release builds and some were debug builds. Cheers Russell Back to top Alisdair Meredith Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Randall Parker wrote: Quote: I wonder just how much resources Borland has committed to C++ under BDS. Will they just take what they have in terms of compiler and linker and other C++ specific stuff and integrate it with BDS and ship that? Or will they pick up where they left off a few years ago when they ceased to seriously improve C++ standards compliance and code generation and other shortcomings in the C++ tool chain (both compiler and linker and even libs) and seriously start to make their C++ support better? I may wear a TeamB hat, but I have no more knowledge than anyone else out here other than the Open Letter. My instinct says that CBX was a play to the standard C++ crowd, and all the attention demanded by we VCLers, including the Open-Letter-to-management, has persuaded Borland that the VCL product and compatibility is more important. This does not mean that C++ compliance will be forgotten, but the message we (as a community) have sent management is that VCL compatibility is what matters, so VCL is where the focus will lie. In the ideal world there are resources to go around to build the perfect IDE and the perfect compiler. In the real world some tough choices need to be made, and I am not sure how rapidly the ISO-C++ side of the product will progress. (which is my personal concern, I already have everything I need VCL-wise in BCB6) From a marketting standpoint, VCL is the differentiator for BCB, it is what sets it apart from other C++ products and so should rightly be the focus. C++ compliance is now a liability, and I hope enough work will be done to minimize this. Personally I don't expect to see Borland leading the field on this now though, especially after VC7.1 raised the bar so high. And if you can't be the leader, how far do you have to go just to stay competitive? I suspect that is the way the question will be asked by management. And for all I really would like to see blazing ISO conformance, it may well be the right question for many existing customers, who *do* want to see progress and support for RAD development the VCL way, refactoring support in the IDE, UML reverse-and-round-trip engineering, Model Driven Architecture, neat integration with version control and bug reporting/requirements gathering tools, etc. Hopefully there will be some progress on the Standard Library front, even if it is only grabbing a later update from STLport. But even though licensing a more recent library sounds cheap and simple, there is still all the QA associated with it, and that takes time/resources away from QAing the compiler so nothing is free! I have hopes for the product, especially for the IDE/tools integration! I am not yet sure how much progress to expect on the compiler. AlisdairM Back to top Kenneth de Camargo Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Alisdair Meredith wrote: Quote: I have hopes for the product, especially for the IDE/tools integration! I am not yet sure how much progress to expect on the compiler. At least the minimum effort to make it able to compile widely used libraries like STL and boost out of the box would be worth it. -- Ken http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/ * this is not a sig * Back to top Alisdair Meredith Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Kenneth de Camargo wrote: Quote: At least the minimum effort to make it able to compile widely used libraries like STL and boost out of the box would be worth it. How many problems do you have with straight STL code today? I may be lucky to have hit relatively few problems, but that may be my 'limitted' use. Although we use STL heavily in our code, we mainly exercise the same few containers and algorithms, preferring boost for binders and smart pointers. There is a *lot* more that can be done with IOStreams that we use, for instance. Complex numbers and valarray are not that useful for us, nor do we experiment with wide-char streams. So while there are definitely problems with some of the Boost libraries (I would dearly love to use Lambda, or tr1-function) my experience is that STL compiles and runs fine. (for BCB6, BCB5 had a bad exception hierarchy which caused problems!) AlisdairM(TeamB) Back to top Leroy Casterline Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language "Kenneth de Camargo" <INVERT:rb.moc.arret@jcrk> wrote: Quote: At least the minimum effort to make it able to compile widely used libraries like STL and boost out of the box would be worth it. I would think so as well. As I previously mentioned, compliance isn't a big issue for me as I don't use boost (etc). On the other hand, one of the reasons I haven't tried boost is the comparability issue. My biggest reason for hoping that Borland sees fit to upgrade compliance is the opinion of other (potential) C++ programmers. I'd like to see some of the folks using MS tools give BDS a try. It's in my (our) best interest for this to happen. I know there are Win32 VB people out there who want a good RAD Win32 solution. Some of will prefer C++ to Delphi for whatever reason. Rolling BCB into BDS makes the Borland product more attractive, especially to those who are a bit afraid of C++. BDS will give them a chance to give it a try, and fall back to Delphi at no additional cost (and without losing the VCL knowledge they've gained) if they don't find C++ worth the effort. I think this is more likely if the BCB compiler is known as acceptably compliant with reasonable performance. Back to top Duane Hebert Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language "Leroy Casterline" <casterle (AT) ccltd (DOT) com> wrote Quote: "Kenneth de Camargo" <INVERT:rb.moc.arret@jcrk> wrote: At least the minimum effort to make it able to compile widely used libraries like STL and boost out of the box would be worth it. I would think so as well. As I previously mentioned, compliance isn't a big issue for me as I don't use boost (etc). On the other hand, one of the reasons I haven't tried boost is the comparability issue. My biggest reason for hoping that Borland sees fit to upgrade compliance is the opinion of other (potential) C++ programmers. I'd like to see some of the folks using MS tools give BDS a try. It's in my (our) best interest for this to happen. This is a very good point. If Borland doesn't take this seriously, BCB under whatever name is going to just be a niche product. Borland also needs to be more responsive to bug reports and developer's concerns then they've been in the past. I just read a post from one of the boost developers on an ms newsgroup. He was reporting a bug in the compiler. He was directed to their bug report link. You don't see these guys around here or on QC because it's generally acknowledged that Borland doesn't respond to these things. Back to top Kenneth de Camargo Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Alisdair Meredith wrote: Quote: How many problems do you have with straight STL code today? I wasn't thinking about my own experience, but the sort of complaints that mostly pop up around here. 100% compliance to the latest standards may be setting the bar too high; as a general rule, going from 90% compliant to 95% compliant is probably harder than getting from 70% to 90%. :) What I meant to say is that instead of defining compliance in abstract terms or using a checklist of the latest features, it would be more advisable to aim for the most used code libraries floating around. As far as *I* am concerned, I would love to have an import utility for automatically translating gnu makefiles to Borland-compatible ones, but that's another story. :) -- Ken http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/ * this is not a sig * Back to top Randall Parker Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Ken, I agree. I can always program around some limitation of the compiler that I find in my own code. But I'm usually not going to attempt to do compiler compatibility fixes to big complex third party libraries. So I think Borland should place higher priority in doing standards compliance fixes that increase boost compatibility and other large open source library compatibility. Kenneth de Camargo wrote: Quote: What I meant to say is that instead of defining compliance in abstract terms or using a checklist of the latest features, it would be more advisable to aim for the most used code libraries floating around. Back to top Kenneth de Camargo Guest Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Randall Parker wrote: Quote: I agree. I can always program around some limitation of the compiler that I find in my own code. But I'm usually not going to attempt to do compiler compatibility fixes to big complex third party libraries. So I think Borland should place higher priority in doing standards compliance fixes that increase boost compatibility and other large open source library compatibility. Maybe Borland could run a survey among BCB users (or C++ users in general) about which code libraries are more frequently used and then check them out. Or maybe they could just ask TeamB members. Then again maybe they could just ask Chris Uzdavinis, he seems to know them all. :) -- Ken http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/ * this is not a sig * Back to top Alisdair Meredith Guest Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:21 am    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Kenneth de Camargo wrote: Quote: What I meant to say is that instead of defining compliance in abstract terms or using a checklist of the latest features, it would be more advisable to aim for the most used code libraries floating around. I know one of MS goals for VC7.1 was to compile Boost and Loki with no workarounds. It was a nice objective target for 'good enough'. They pretty much accomplished it, and are rightly proud of that fact (more so than the marketing team who don't understand why some little 3rd party library might matter!) Going from VC7 to VC7.1 was a huge ammount of work though, and VC7 already passed more boost tests that the current Borland compiler. I think setting the bar at full Boost could be too high for the next release, unless we want to scare management off entirely! I would be happy if we had full library TR1 support, or at least as full as we have STL today. Then come back and take another bite with the next release. AlisdairM(TeamB) Back to top Atmapuri Guest Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:43 am    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Hi! I think that realistically the next version of BCB will be something like this: - take advantage of the new IDE - enable support for the "current" VCL and Delphi compiler. Maybe some bug fixes for the compiler and minor enhancements. If you think about it, that is already huge work. But I think it is not realistic to expect: - major compiler optimizations - support for .NET - vastly improved compiler compliance. These are three big issues for C++ and there seem to be no real initiative (resources and capabilities) to address them. Delphi has similar problem: 1.) matching the .NET features 2.) W32 performance. Borland was not investing in compiler technology seriously for the last 5-8 years. The "only" (!!!) way to catch up with the others is to buy a company or technology. If they invest on their own, it would probably take 3 years, before you could see substantial improvements. For the Delphi compiler, the assigned human resources have probably trippled to get the .NET compiler working and comparable with C#. Best Regards! Atmapuri Back to top Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) Guest Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language "Kenneth de Camargo" <INVERT:rb.moc.arret@jcrk> writes: Quote: Alisdair Meredith wrote: How many problems do you have with straight STL code today? I wasn't thinking about my own experience, but the sort of complaints that mostly pop up around here. 100% compliance to the latest standards may be setting the bar too high; as a general rule, going from 90% compliant to 95% compliant is probably harder than getting from 70% to 90%. I agree with you here. That last 10% or so is by far the hardest (almost by definition... if it were easy it would be done already.) Quote: What I meant to say is that instead of defining compliance in abstract terms or using a checklist of the latest features, it would be more advisable to aim for the most used code libraries floating around. This seems like a reasonable idea except: * the libraries are not necessarily purely correct C++. They have workarounds for bugs, or may have subtle, undetected bugs that just happen to work. Making a compiler in terms of the library might be wrong. * If the library only uses a feature in a single way, should the compiler have a partial implementation of that feature? How do you partially implement something like template specialization? Some features need to be complete or shouldn't be implemented at all. * Some features depend on other features working. Thus, there could be large fan-out in terms of required features and bug fixes in order to get the libraries to work. I agree, though, that if a feature can be done in isolation, that those in use should have a higher priority. (And those not in use should have a lower priority, like exported templates.) Quote: As far as *I* am concerned, I would love to have an import utility for automatically translating gnu makefiles to Borland-compatible ones, but that's another story. That's really, really hard. :) -- Chris (TeamB); Back to top Kenneth de Camargo Guest Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Note that Borland has not committed to improved language Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote: Quote: This seems like a reasonable idea except: (skip a number of excellent arguments) I do agree with your points, but I still think however that as a general rule of thumb setting priorities according to what features are indeed being used instead of simply looking at a list of the unimplemented standard's features is more reasonable. With all the caveats you mention, of course. Quote: I agree, though, that if a feature can be done in isolation, that those in use should have a higher priority. (And those not in use should have a lower priority, like exported templates.) I was wondering if something like that VCL usage tool that was distributed a few years ago couldn't be done wrt the unimplemented C++ features. Quote: As far as I am concerned, I would love to have an import utility for automatically translating gnu makefiles to Borland-compatible ones, but that's another story. :) That's really, really hard. It's Xmas time, who knows. :) -- Ken http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/ * this is not a sig * Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C++ Builder Newsgroups----------------C++ BuilderC++ Builder (ActiveX)C++ Builder (Announcements)C++ Builder (Command Line Tools)C++ Builder DatabasesC++ Builder Databases (ADO)C++ Builder Databases (Desktop)C++ Builder Databases (InterBase Express)C++ Builder Databases (Multi-Tier)C++ Builder Databases (SQL Servers)C++ Builder (Graphics)C++ Builder (IDE)C++ Builder (Internet)C++ Builder (Internet Socket)C++ Builder (Internet Web)C++ Builder (Jobs)C++ Builder (Language)C++ Builder (Language C++)C++ Builder (Compatibility with MFC)C++ Builder (Native API)C++ Builder (Non-Technical)C++ Builder (Students)C++ Builder (Third Party Tools)C++ Builder (Upgrade)C++ Builder (VCL)C++ Builder (VCL Components Usage)C++ Builder (VCL Components Development)C++ Builder (VCL Usage)C++ Builder (WinAPI)C++ Builder Installation Delphi Newsgroups----------------Delphi (General)Delphi ActiveX Controls UsageDelphi ActiveX Controls DevelopmentDelphi As400Delphi DatabasesDelphi Databases (ADO)Delphi Databases (dbExpress)Delphi Databases (Desktop)Delphi Databases (InterBase Express)Delphi Databases (Multi-Tier)Delphi Databases (SQL Servers)Delphi DeploymentDelphi GraphicsDelphi IDEDelphi InternationalizationDelphi InternetDelphi Internet Isapi-WebBrokerDelphi Internet WebSnapDelphi Internet WinsockDelphi JobsDelphi Language BASMDelphi Language ObjectPascalDelphi Model Driven Architecture (General)Delphi Model Driven Architecture (Third Party)Delphi MultimediaDelphi Native APIDelphi Non-TechnicalDelphi ObjectPascalDelphi OLE AutomationDelphi OO designDelphi OpenToolsAPIDelphi Reporting-ChartingDelphi RTLDelphi StudentsDelphi TeamSourceDelphi Thirdparty ToolsDelphi Thirdparty Tools (General)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (IntraWeb)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (RaveReports)Delphi UpgradeDelphi VCLDelphi VCL ComponentsDelphi VCL Components UsingDelphi VCL Components WritingDelphi WebServices SOAPDelphi WinAPIDelphi XMLDelphi Installationcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.misccomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.usagecomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.writingcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.databasescomp.lang.pascal.delphi.misccomp.sources.delphi JBuilder Newsgroups----------------JBuilderJBuilder AnnouncementsJBuilder Applet IssuesJBuilder As400JBuilder CompilerJBuilder CORBA/RMIJBuilder DatabasesJBuilder DB SwingJBuilder DebuggerJBuilder DeploymentJBuilder DocumentationJBuilder EnterpriseJBuilder HandheldJBuilder IDEJBuilder JavaJBuilder JavaAPIJBuilder Java LanguageJBuilder Java SwingJBuilder Java BeansJBuilder Java Beans UsageJBuilder Java Beans DevelopmentJBuilder JBCLJBuilder JDataStoreJBuilder JobsJBuilder LinuxJBuilder MacintoshJBuilder & MobileSetJBuilder MultiLingual AppsJBuilder Non-TechnicalJBuilder OpenToolsJBuilder Servlets (JSP)JBuilder StudentsJBuilder Team DevelopmentJBuilder Thirdparty ToolsJBuilder UpgradeJBuilder Installation InterBase Newsgroups----------------InterBaseInterBase Bug DiscussionInterBase GeneralInterBase IBConsoleInterBase OpenSourceInterBase ReplicationInterBase SQLInterBase ThirdpartyInterBase Installation Miscellaneous Borland Newsgroups----------------AppCenterAppServerEnteraVisiBroker  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.