BorlandTalk.com Borland discussion newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  VC++ 2005 Beta Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next          BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Boian Mitov Guest Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 7:55 pm    Post subject: VC++ 2005 Beta I just tested the VC++ 2005 Beta, and I should say I am far from impressed. It is not any better then the current VC++.NET in terms of how the .NET forms are handled. The syntax is nothing like a C++ and is even further away than the BCB extensions. It is unreadable for a native C++ developer, and all the code is generated in the header! It is far inferior to BCB at the moment, and is not even going into a reasonable direction! With best regards, Boian Mitov Back to top Dave Jewell Guest Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta "Boian Mitov" <mitov (AT) mitov (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I just tested the VC++ 2005 Beta, and I should say I am far from impressed. It is not any better then the current VC++.NET in terms of how the .NET forms are handled. This sounds vague. Can you elaborate on what you don't like here? Quote: The syntax is nothing like a C++ and is even further away than the BCB extensions. It is unreadable for a native C++ developer, I suspect that what you're griping at is the new "handle" syntax used by C++/CLI. There's a good intro article here: http://www.codeproject.com/managedcpp/cppcliintro01.asp You should also follow the link which discusses ECMA standardisation. If Borland ever *do* bring out their own C++ dev system for .NET, it will almost certainly use the same syntax. Heck, it will almost certainly use the same compiler. ) Dave Back to top Boian Mitov Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:36 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Dave Jewell wrote: Quote: "Boian Mitov" <mitov (AT) mitov (DOT) com> wrote in message news:40f19d9d$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... I just tested the VC++ 2005 Beta, and I should say I am far from impressed. It is not any better then the current VC++.NET in terms of how the .NET forms are handled. This sounds vague. Can you elaborate on what you don't like here? All the code goes in the header! If that is not bad implementation, what is a bad one? Back to top Andre Kaufmann Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:48 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Quote: I just tested the VC++ 2005 Beta, and I should say I am far from impressed. What about STL debugging ? There are many new features i ´d like to see in a new Borland C++ compiler, whatever that may be CBX or BCB. Since this is a Borland group i don´t start a discussion about pros and cons or new features of the VC Beta. Quote: It is not any better then the current VC++.NET in terms of how the .NET forms are handled. The syntax is nothing like a C++ The syntax is C++/CLI and since it´s a standard it may be implemented by Borland, too. A Borland C++ compiler may compile the VC.NET code and all the C++/CLI components may be used by all the .NET languages. And this compiler would be free to implement the code in a cpp unit. Quote: All the code goes in the header! If that is not bad implementation, what is a bad one? I´ve got another example for such a bad implementation, STL and BOOST - :-9 (I know why the code has to be in the header). Or all the other languages which don´t have separate header files, Delphi, Basic, C# ..... Besides what has such a discussion to do with C++ Builder ? Andre Back to top Boian Mitov Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:32 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Ho often do you change the STL? Every time you change something on a form the VC++ will change the header and force any other unit using it to recompile... That is not the case with any of the products you mentioned. There is a lot of noise on this group about how bad BCB is and how great VC++ 2005 is going to be. I don't see VC++ 2005 getting anywhere near what we had even in BCB 1.0 yet. Not to mention that the RAD is .NET only, and as such will be useless for a lot of us at least for 2-3 more years. Andre Kaufmann wrote: Quote: I´ve got another example for such a bad implementation, STL and BOOST - :-9 (I know why the code has to be in the header). Or all the other languages which don´t have separate header files, Delphi, Basic, C# ..... Besides what has such a discussion to do with C++ Builder ? Andre Back to top Russell Hind Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Boian Mitov wrote: Quote: Ho often do you change the STL? Every time you change something on a form the VC++ will change the header and force any other unit using it to recompile... That is not the case with any of the products you mentioned. There is a lot of noise on this group about how bad BCB is and how great VC++ 2005 is going to be. I don't see VC++ 2005 getting anywhere near what we had even in BCB 1.0 yet. Not to mention that the RAD is .NET only, and as such will be useless for a lot of us at least for 2-3 more years. Ok, it isn't as easy as Borland, but you are free to move the implementation of methods in to the cpp file if you wish (I do this with VS2003). FWIW, I think the beta has some nice features that BCB/BCBX are lacking, notably the STL debugging as previously mentioned is a huge improvement IMHO. Cheers Russell Back to top Dave Jewell Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:18 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta "Boian Mitov" <mitov (AT) mitov (DOT) com> wrote Quote: All the code goes in the header! If that is not bad implementation, what is a bad one? I don't understand why putting code in a header file is a "bad implementation"? Your objections seem to be ideological rather than technical. However, Andre Kaufmann has pointed out that this is not the right place to engage in a debate on the pros and cons of Microsoft's products, so I won't pursue the thread. I was just interested to know why you objected so violently to what (in my opinion) is a very nice development tool at an even nicer price. ) Dave Back to top Randall Parker Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:12 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Dave Jewell wrote: Quote: I don't understand why putting code in a header file is a "bad implementation"? Your objections seem to be ideological rather than technical. The code in a .cpp can change without triggering a rebuild of all the source files that include it. Putting all the code in the .h makes rebuilds involve more source files more often. That is way worse than BCB. There is nothing ideological about Boian's point. Back to top Andre Kaufmann Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:29 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta "Boian Mitov" <mitov (AT) mitov (DOT) com> wrote Sigh ... i didn´t want to start a long discussion........................... Quote: Ho often do you change the STL? Every time you change something on a form the VC++ will change the header and force any other unit using it That´s true for each C++ code using templates you write too. And BCB won´t change the header if you change something in the form ? E.g. add a new handler function ? Quote: to recompile... That is not the case with any of the products you mentioned. There is a lot of noise on this group about how bad BCB is BCB isn´t that bad at all - but the support and the C++ roadmap is that bad i would call it .... i better don´t write the word. I think the most critics weren´t about BCB´s RAD - or am i wrong ? Some years before i didn´t know what an open letter is ..... and what it´s good for, ... well i don´t know that even today. I would like to see a long open beta phase and a clear roadmap from Borland, too - that´s what i have to criticize. Quote: and how great VC++ 2005 is going to be. I don't see VC++ 2005 getting anywhere near what we had even in BCB 1.0 yet. BCB 1.0 - ? The RAD part ok - the C++ part ? - hmmmmmmmmmmmm Quote: Not to mention that the RAD is .NET only, and as such will be useless for a lot of us at least for 2-3 more years. Everybody can make a decision of it´s own and since you started bashing VC (which i find to be a bit unfair in a BCB newsgroup), i think you rather encouraged other users to do download the compiler, too. If you want to reduce the compiler to the RAD feature then i would say you are better off using Delphi, since BCB won´t be never such fast as the Pascal compiler. You can´t use your C++ code in Delphi ? That´s where .NET jumps in and makes that possible. Fast RAD components in Delphi or any other .NET language and using that components from C++ and not to mention it again - since it´s a standard BCB may implement support for the .NET framework too. I´m free to use any language i like - share components with other languages and yes even in C++/CLI. If Borland would have opened the VCL so that it´s usable by other compilers and languages (yes i know the needed extensions and the Pascal base of the VCL), we wouldn´t perhaps have a great deal of discussion like here in that thread. There are many points i like about the VC IDE or the CBX IDE which i would prefer both over BCB for C++ programming, but as i mentioned this group is the the wrong to discuss the pros and cons of Microsoft compilers. I have always a look at the different compilers and IDE´s and make a decision of my own. That´s what i encourage everybody to do, if you don´t like an IDE or compiler then simply don´t use it - ok sometimes you have to :-/ Andre Back to top Dave Jewell Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:38 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta "Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote Quote: The code in a .cpp can change without triggering a rebuild of all the source files that include it. Putting all the code in the .h makes rebuilds involve more source files more often. That is way worse than BCB. There is nothing ideological about Boian's point. Wouldn't that depend on how smart VS.NET is? Historically, whenever a header file changes, then every source file that includes that header needs to be recompiled. But I would have hoped for something a little more clever, by now... Dave Back to top Andre Kaufmann Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:42 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta "Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Dave Jewell wrote: There is nothing ideological about Boian's point. But it was the only point - a single negative one. No other negative and no positive points mentioned - i would call that ideological motivated. Andre Back to top Drobins Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Could you use the VC++ 2005 with VCL for .Net as a replacement/migration path for BCB? -- Dave "Boian Mitov" <mitov (AT) mitov (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I just tested the VC++ 2005 Beta, and I should say I am far from impressed. It is not any better then the current VC++.NET in terms of how the .NET forms are handled. The syntax is nothing like a C++ and is even further away than the BCB extensions. It is unreadable for a native C++ developer, and all the code is generated in the header! It is far inferior to BCB at the moment, and is not even going into a reasonable direction! With best regards, Boian Mitov Back to top Alisdair Meredith Guest Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:28 pm    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Randall Parker wrote: Quote: The code in a .cpp can change without triggering a rebuild of all the source files that include it. Putting all the code in the .h makes rebuilds involve more source files more often. That is way worse than BCB. There is nothing ideological about Boian's point. It also complicates you dependencies. The nice thing about header/cpp split is that your public interface nned not expose dependencies on your implementation details. With a few forward declarations you are usually in the clear, especially when using the pimpl idiom. Having waded through code that makes no effort to separate interface and implementation (a single 'master header' that includes the world) and evolved it into something managable, I really wouldn't want to go back to that! It seems strange to me to enforce bad style on your library users, but given some MS history (MFC) I guess I should not be that surprised. That said, I really like the look of C++/CLI as a syntax for .NET, much cleaner than Managed C++. Just wish they could have won over more support from the .NET team (eg. .NET does not support const correctnes. However it does have init-only fields. And read-only properties.) AlisdairM(TeamB) Back to top john blackburn Guest Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:32 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta Dave Jewell wrote: Quote: "Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote The code in a .cpp can change without triggering a rebuild of all the source files that include it. Putting all the code in the .h makes rebuilds involve more source files more often. That is way worse than BCB. There is nothing ideological about Boian's point. Wouldn't that depend on how smart VS.NET is? Historically, whenever a header file changes, then every source file that includes that header needs to be recompiled. But I would have hoped for something a little more clever, by now... Dave I am not a language expert at all and what I'm about to say may, unfortunately, underline that. However, wouldn't having significant amounts of implementation in header files bloat out the application by including code multiple times throughout the application. Also, you would be more likely to get strange compiler errors when using these include files from third party libraries which are then recompiled under your compiler. For example, what if the compiler originally used for the development of the library was quite tolerant about passing temporary variables and your compiler is not (I've seen this with BCB and gcc). It doesn't seem right fighting against the original ethos of header files. Regards John Back to top Russell Hind Guest Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:04 am    Post subject: Re: VC++ 2005 Beta john blackburn wrote: Quote: I am not a language expert at all and what I'm about to say may, unfortunately, underline that. However, wouldn't having significant amounts of implementation in header files bloat out the application by including code multiple times throughout the application. Also, you would be more likely to get strange compiler errors when using these include files from third party libraries which are then recompiled under your compiler. For example, what if the compiler originally used for the development of the library was quite tolerant about passing temporary variables and your compiler is not (I've seen this with BCB and gcc). It doesn't seem right fighting against the original ethos of header files. No it doesn't and this is my biggest complaint when comparing WinForms C++ development to VCL C++ development. But Microsoft uses #pragma once in the headers, is this a special compiler directive to stop these problems of code in multiple units showing up? I don't know. Still, they ought to take a leaf out of the VCL solution for this and separate declaration from implementation for event handlers. Cheers Russell 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next Page 1 of 7   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.